Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Cyprus

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]

Mr. David Amess: I particularly welcome your presence, Madam Speaker, at the beginning of our proceedings, as I realise that we are debating a subject that is of some interest to you. Indeed, it is a subject in which you have considerable expertise.
I may be wrong, but I think that this occasion may mark the Minister's debut at the Dispatch Box in a debate on Cyprus.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): indicated assent.

Mr. Amess: I welcome her to the debate.
I should perhaps say that I am not Greek or Turkish, but a British Member of Parliament who was born in London. Some of my constituents would probably say, "David, there is enough to worry about in Southend without expending your efforts in a debate on the future of the tiny island of Cyprus." I suppose that such a sentiment sums up how hon. Members are thought of today—largely as an alternative councillor and glorified social worker, overlooking our national and international roles.
I strongly believe that the future of Cyprus is and should be of great concern to all hon. Members, particularly because of the island's strategic defence importance. The presence in the Chamber of so many hon. Members demonstrates that many others share my views on the importance of Cyprus's future.
I made my most recent visit to Cyprus, at the end of August, as a guest of the Cypriot Brotherhood. I went as part of an all-party group, which included my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright)—who had hoped to attend this debate but, unfortunately, is otherwise engaged. We met in Cyprus, on an all-party basis, many different people, and were very pleased to meet President Clerides.
After that visit, I felt great frustration at the lack of progress in achieving a fair and peaceful resolution of the situation in Cyprus. Although the Minister may say that it is unfair to criticise that lack of progress, my criticism is not directed at her or the Government. I applied for this Adjournment debate, for which I am grateful, because of that frustration.
In my time as an hon. Member, there have been many debates on the future of Cyprus. Although I certainly do not pretend that I am an expert on the subject, I am still entitled to my views on it. The chances are that no original views will be expressed in this debate, but—who knows—today may be an historic occasion. Perhaps, in future years, we will be able to claim that today's debate made an important contribution in finding a resolution to the problem.
It may surprise the House to learn that, in my constituency of Southend, West, I have very few Greek Cypriot constituents. The overwhelming number of my Cypriot constituents are Turkish. I believe that I have very good relations with those Turkish Cypriots, with whom I have interesting exchanges on matters concerning Cyprus. Nevertheless, I should make it clear now that my own sympathies lie with the arguments that have been enunciated by those on the Greek side of the issue.
Cyprus, as we all know, is undoubtedly a very beautiful island, but its landscape has been entirely marred by the green line. Hon. Members may have been sent a photographic record of the line by Doris Partasides. For those who like looking at pictures and are not so interested in text, that record graphically demonstrates the tragedy that is Cyprus. I thought of Miss Havisham and her frustrated wedding feast when I looked at the photographs, which show the eeriness and tragedy of the green line—and which is madness. Surely it cannot be in the interests of the Cypriot people to have a divided island.
We ignore history at our peril. The history of the occupation of Cyprus over the centuries is used by the Greek and Turkish Governments partly to justify their positions. I know that there are hon. Members here this morning who are drawn to both sides of the argument. As we know, Cyprus finally achieved independence in 1960, but that independence was short lived. In the summer of 1974, Turkey, following a military coup against President Makarios, invaded the island. That is a fact, and cannot be disputed.

Mr. Jamie Cann: I do not like the word "invaded". Turkey was one of the guarantor powers of the treaty of independence. Under that treaty, Turkey intervened in a military coup that was taking place in Cyprus and during which Turkish citizens were being massacred.

Mr. Roger Gale: Why are the Turkish troops still there?

Mr. Amess: There we are—

Mr. Cann: Madam Speaker, may I respond to the sedentary intervention of the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale)?

Madam Speaker: I did not hear it. Is the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) giving way?

Mr. Amess: I should like to reply to the first intervention. There we are—we have heard the Turkish view of events. I said that we ignore history at our peril, and we seem to have two versions of history. I do not want to waste hon. Members' time by engaging in


semantics, as many want to speak. The hon. Gentleman has expressed his point of view; we shall have to agree to differ.

Mr. Andrew Love: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was also part of the terms of the treaty that any troops who went to the island should leave as soon as possible and return the status quo ante?

Mr. Amess: Yes, I am delighted to be able to agree whole-heartedly with the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of history, with which I know another hon. Member disagrees.
What I was about to say—it might please the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) a little—is that we must not forget that the military coup was carried out by the Greek junta. The Turkish Government at the time said that their action was aimed at re-establishing the status quo created by the Cyprus treaty of independence. Constitutional order was indeed restored within a week, but the invading forces—I know that the hon. Member for Ipswich does not like that description—extended their operations and occupied 37 per cent. of the republic's territory. Tragically, as a result of that, 5,000 Greek Cypriots lost their lives.

Mr. Eddie O'Hara: Whether we call it invasion or intervention, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the continued occupation of 37 per cent. of northern Cyprus since 1974 by the Turkish army is in contravention of Turkey's powers under the treaty of guarantee?

Mr. Amess: Again, I am pleased to be able to agree with the hon. Gentleman whom I was privileged to accompany on a visit last year. He has great expertise in these matters as he was stationed in Cyprus for some time. I whole-heartedly agree with his interpretation of the facts.
Five thousand Greek Cypriots lost their lives, nearly 200,000 became refugees and 1,619 are still unaccounted for. Greek Cypriots believe strongly that Turkey began a programme of demographic change in the occupied zone. Settlers from Turkey were allowed to establish themselves on the island as full citizens with the right to vote. In 1983, Mr. Denktas declared a separate state. The international community—again, this is a matter of fact—unanimously rejected that action. Today, the occupied territory is recognised by Turkey alone.
As evidence of how the Greek Cypriots feel, I want to quote a wide-ranging speech made by the re-elected President Clerides to the General Assembly of the United Nations on 25 September. In it, he set out his proposals for the future of Cyprus. It shows clearly the Greek Cypriots' claim that their efforts to achieve a settlement have been frustrated, although I know that some hon. Members will disagree. President Clerides said:
As regards Security Council and General Assembly Resolutions calling for the speedy withdrawal of all foreign armed forces and personnel from the Republic of Cyprus, not only the Turkish Armed Forces and personnel have not been withdrawn but they have been increased and upgraded to such an extent that the previous

Secretary-General Mr. Boutros Ghali described in his report to the Security Council the occupied part of Cyprus as the most militarized area in the world.

Mr. Cann:: Rubbish.

Mr. Amess: The hon. Gentleman shouts, "Rubbish", but I was quoting the President of Cyprus. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to disagree.
President Clerides continued:
UN resolutions for the return of the refugees to their homes under conditions of safety were not implemented not only because Turkish Forces prevented the refugees to return, but also because Turkey, violating other provisions of UN resolutions calling on all parties concerned to avoid any action to change the demographic composition of the population of Cyprus, imported to Cyprus thousands of illegal settlers from Turkey, usurped the properties of the refugees and installed settlers into them.
He continued:
The recent demand of the Turkish Cypriot leader Mr. Denktash in the presence of the Turkish Foreign Minister for a confederation solution violates all UN resolutions, which call for a bizonal, bicommunal federation with a single sovereignty, international personality and citizenship, and is aimed at derailing the negotiating process from the base of the UN resolutions on Cyprus, but also at extinguishing the independence of the Republic of Cyprus and creating under the guise of a Turkish Cypriot Republic a Turkish colony in Cyprus or to say the least a Turkish protectorate.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most significant factors in what has happened has been the refusal of Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots to pay any heed to repeated United Nations resolutions? The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann). who intervened on my hon. Friend and continues to laugh at his speech, might not like it, but the fact remains that it is Turkey and Turkish Cypriots who have continued to flout the will of the United Nations.

Mr. Amess: I agree with my hon. Friend. That was certainly the evidence that we found on our recent visit.
President Clerides went on to say:
The non-implementation of United Nation Resolutions on Cyprus tarnishes the image of the United Nations and its main bodies. The former Secretary-General Mr. Boutros Boutros Ghali has in one of his reports to the Security Council identified that a cause for the absence of progress in Cyprus is the lack of political will on the part of the Turkish side. With that report the diagnosis of the causes of the failure to make progress towards a solution is completed. Is it too much for the people of Cyprus to ask what will the next step be? Will the United Nations finally take the necessary action to apply the required remedy in order to put an end to the tragedy that has befallen our small state and which continues for 24 years?
That is President Clerides's interpretation of the current position, but hon. Members are entitled to agree or not. However, it would be foolish of the House not to unite in agreement with President Clerides, who says of his vision for Cyprus:
I want all Cypriots to have security in their homes and their communities. I want all Cypriots to pursue their livelihoods".

Mr. Roy Beggs: I believe that we, in the United Kingdom, wish the Turkish Cypriots in northern Cyprus and the Greeks to enjoy security and safety. However, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has made no reference to the reason why the Turkish Cypriots lack that comfort and security—the betrayal by successive


British Governments in failing to play their part and guarantee the security to which the Turkish Cypriots were entitled, and which was denied them by an expansionist Greek regime.

Mr. Amess: The hon. Gentleman, as an Ulster Unionist, knows all about political difficulties, and I do not dismiss his contribution this morning. He has placed on the record his version of events. Later I may—without necessarily criticising the Government—agree with part of what he says.

Mr. Gale: Does my hon. Friend agree that a very significant number of Turkish Cypriots have found it necessary to leave the island of Cyprus and are now resident in Australia, New Zealand and, indeed, in London and other parts of the United Kingdom? They have done so as a direct result of the fact that they feel unsafe under what is termed their own regime in the northern part of Cyprus.

Mr. Amess: I agree unequivocally. Last year, that fear was evident, especially when we visited Famagusta. He is entirely right that, as a result, many people have now chosen to live in Australia.

Mr. Cann: Does the hon. Gentleman also recognise that the second largest population of Greek people in one town is in Melbourne in Australia?

Mr. Amess: To allow everyone to speak, I shall—I hope without being discourteous to others—move on quickly and conclude my speech.
I had hoped—obviously the hope was futile—that hon. Members might unite in agreement with President Clerides, who has said:
I want all Cypriots to have security in their homes and their communities. I want all Cypriots to pursue their livelihoods free of economic restrictions and the fear of instability. I want all Cypriot children to know their distinct culture and religious heritage and to be able to carry their identity and political rights into the future without fear of domination from any quarter.
In 1991, the Cyprus Government applied for full membership of the European Union. I support their application, not least because I believe in the enlargement of the community. I understand that the negotiation process is taking place at the moment, as it is for the six other countries that have applied to join the Union. We know that Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot leader have declared their opposition to the admission of Cyprus. After the long years of uncertainty for the Cypriot people, I believe that the British Government have a great responsibility to encourage Cyprus in its application, and I hope that we shall take positive steps to encourage an amicable and peaceful settlement to the Cypriot problem.
Often people say to me, "There is no problem between the Cypriot people; the problem is between the Greek and the Turkish Governments." I do not know whether that is the case, but the Turkish Cypriot community in my constituency says that it has no argument with the Greek Cypriot community.

Mr. Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Amess: For the last time.

Mr. Love: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Cyprus's application for accession to the EU may act as a catalyst in bringing the two communities together and finding a resolution to the problem of the division of that island?

Mr. Amess: I agree whole-heartedly. As a Conservative Member of Parliament, I might be

somewhat sceptical about some elements of the EU, but I entirely agree that membership can, in a very positive sense, bring about a lasting settlement.
So often, personalities determine events. I was optimistic that the last Prime Minister but one of Turkey—who, tragically, died following a heart attack—might have been instrumental in bringing about a settlement. Today, we need strong personalities to achieve that. I hope that the Minister will address several issues. If she does not have time to respond this morning, perhaps she will write to me on the matter, but I should like to know in detail, eventually, precisely what Her Majesty's Government are trying to do in a practical sense to bring about a settlement.
In my constituency, members of the Turkish Cypriot community are troubled by the present visa requirements. They say that there never used to be any difficulty. They find it insulting when mothers and fathers are now required to have visas. I do not know the truth of that; would the Minister kindly let me know?
On another matter, which may not seem relevant to the future of Cyprus, I am deeply involved in supporting members of the Cypriot community who are concerned about the tragic consequences of thalassaemia, and I am working with them to raise money to combat it. I have first-hand knowledge of that tragic illness, which is a blood disorder that destroys the lives of young people mainly. I know that Her Majesty's Government's resources for the health service are greatly stretched at the moment, but I wonder whether the Minister could offer any words on what we are trying to do to combat that disease. Next year, I shall visit the northern and southern sides of Cyprus, and I shall present a cheque to the appropriate authorities to try to help fight it.
Nothing could be more graphic than a visit to Famagusta to demonstrate the futility of the situation. Last year, I visited the island with the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and the hon. Member whose constituency I have forgotten.

Mr. O'Hara: Knowsley, South.

Mr. Amess: I am sorry; I meant the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara). We spent time with the mayor, deputy mayor and other councillors. We learnt at first hand their experiences—the real fear that exists.
I know that the Cypriots are looking to the United States of America to take a lead in this matter. In July 1996, Madeleine Albright, US Secretary of State, said:
a settlement to the Cyprus problem is long overdue … finding a just and lasting settlement that will end the longstanding division of Cyprus is one of my highest priorities".
I believe that the expectations that arose from that statement have not been fulfilled. Sadly, the American Administration is somewhat flawed and distracted at the moment.
All Cypriot people want a future for their country. Anyone visiting the island must surely conclude that the present situation is totally unsatisfactory. It is now up to all political leaders who are of good will, especially in this country, to unite in saying that the situation has persisted for far too long. In the name of decency,


we must ensure that the two communities can live, work and prosper together in a free, united and demilitarised Cyprus. That surely must be the future of Cyprus.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am delighted to see that there is a great deal of interest in the debate, but we have little time for it. I appeal to hon. Members to be brisk and short, because I want to call as many as possible.

Mr. Tom Cox: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on initiating this debate and on his long and honourable contribution to Cyprus. I endorse his comments about my hon. Friend the Minister. He is right to say that this is her first appearance as Minister in a debate on Cyprus, but it is by no means the first time that she has taken part in such debates. Few Foreign Office Ministers have comparable knowledge of Cyprus. In opposition, she was deeply involved with the issue.
I chair the all-party Cyprus group. We are committed to helping the people of Cyprus—Greek or Turkish—to develop their country and live in peace and security. The debate is about the future of Cyprus. The hon. Member for Southend, West has outlined some of the events since 1974. We all look for progress on a settlement to the long-running tragedy, but we have often seen our hopes fall away. The tragedy of Cyprus is that its potential has never been developed. The island is popular with tourists from all over the world, creating vast income and employment. The island also has agricultural potential, bringing further income and employment. The skills of the Cypriot people, their education ability, their employment skills and the fact that there is an established democracy—that is Cyprus 1998, on which the future can be built.
Many of us have campaigned on issues that we regarded as vital to Cyprus over the years. Sadly, we have not made the progress that we all wanted. The hon. Member for Southend, West referred to Famagusta, which is one of the most beautiful towns on the island, as my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) can testify. It is now in the occupied area. It is a ghost town where no one lives. We have long hoped that Famagusta would be returned to the Republic of Cyprus. Promises were made that it would be returned, but they have been reneged on.

Mr. Cann: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Cox: I am not giving way.
The people of Cyprus will never give up hope that their town will be returned. That would have been the real test for the future of Cyprus. The lack of progress on the return of Famagusta is disappointing, but there is a wonderful opportunity for the future of Cyprus—membership of the European Union. Its application is under active consideration. I am pleased that the Government and many other member states fully support that application. President Clerides deserves great credit for his repeated clear and honourable statements that Cyprus' application for membership is for the whole

island, for the benefit of both Greek and Turkish Cypriots, and that membership of the European Union will benefit all Cypriots. He has repeatedly invited Mr. Denktas and the Turkish Cypriots to join him in the negotiating team on EU membership.

Mr. Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cox: I cannot give way because of the time.
Sadly, Mr. Denktas has not co-operated with President Clerides's generous and honourable offers. Instead, further demands and criticisms have been made about the application. I have the greatest respect and regard for my hon. Friend the Minister. I hope that the Government will tell Mr. Denktas clearly that we shall not tolerate his attitude. We must tell him and his friends in Ankara that we fully support Cyprus's application for membership of the European Union. There is no reason why the other 14 members of the European Union should not give equal support.
My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have repeatedly told Turkey in recent months that it has a future in Europe and will one day be able to seek membership of the European Union. I have no objections to that, although, like other hon. Members, I have some reservations about Turkey and many of its actions, particularly within its own borders. The Government should tell Turkey that if it seeks a role in the Europe that is developing, we have a right to tell it to use its influence and friendship with those who can help to ensure that President Clerides's application is fully supported.
I shall close now, because many hon. Members want to speak. I warmly support the comments of the hon. Member for Southend, West in the debate. We know that Cyprus wants to develop its future for all the people of the island—Greek and Turkish. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say clearly that we support the application and President Clerides's generous and honourable offer to Mr. Denktas, because that is a real opportunity, which hon. Members on both sides fully support. I look to my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to give full support to this opportunity for the future of Cyprus so that that beautiful island and its people, with their enormous skills, can develop the opportunity that membership of the European Union will give them.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. May I inform the House that this is a very short debate, in which many hon. Members wish to take part? Short speeches would therefore be appreciated.

Mr. Roger Gale: I am very grateful to be called, and I shall be extremely brief. I shall make two points. Before I do, I should declare a recorded interest as a visitor to Cyprus as the guest of the Morphou municipality and the Greek Cypriot Brotherhood. Very recently, in addition to those visits, I was able, through the good offices of the British high commission, to visit, in the company of hon. Members from both sides of the House, the northern, occupied part of Cyprus—affording


no recognition whatever to the illegal regime—and meet a representative of the leader of the Turkish community and leaders of other Turkish Cypriot parties in that part of the island. It is abundantly plain that there is a burning desire among many Turkish Cypriots to become involved in talks on accession to the European Union and to bring about the unification agreement that will benefit all Cypriots, to which the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) referred.
I hope very much that when the Minister responds to the debate, she will be able to clarify the British Government's position. My first point is that it is absolutely vital that the House sends a very clear message to the Turkish Government that they will be able to exercise no power of veto over Cypriot accession to the EU and that that accession will proceed on track with or without a settlement of the Cyprus problem. Once the Turkish Government clearly understand that, the block to Turkish Cypriot participation in accession talks will be lifted. At that point, the very generous and sincere desire of the president of the republic, President Clerides, for an all-Cyprus negotiating team will become a reality. That will be in the interests of all Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities living in the United Kingdom and on the island of Cyprus.
Secondly, I believe that I am right in saying that, yesterday, the time for a settlement by Turkey in the Loizidou case expired. As the Minister knows, Mrs. Loizidou took the Turkish Government to the European Court, which found in her favour and awarded damages. Turkey was given a period in which to honour the court's findings and to make payment. The Cyprus high commissioner informed me this morning that, as of last night, that payment had not been made. The United Kingdom is a member of the Council of Europe and a supporter of the European Court of Human Rights. It is also a guarantor power. We have an absolute duty to take action and seek enforcement of that European Court judgment. I would be very grateful if the Minister gave some indication of the Government's attitude and the action that we as a country propose to take.

Mr. Jamie Cann: We should at least try to get our facts right about this issue. Britain took over the governance of Cyprus in—I think—1878; it was certainly in the 1800s. At that time, Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots were intermingled in villages across the island. At the back end of the 1950s, a Greek Cypriot movement in Cyprus—EOKA—called for the island to become a sovereign part of Greece. At that time, Greek Cypriots were the ones shooting British soldiers, and Turkish Cypriots the ones who sheltered, succoured and protected them. We seem to get that wrong nowadays. Does nobody read history any more?
When we left the island in the early 1960s, we left a treaty by which we, Greece and Turkey guaranteed we would abide. That treaty said that the president would always be a Greek Cypriot, because there is a majority on the island, that the vice-president would always be a Turkish Cypriot, and that the system would be bicameral. Within two years, that was broken. The Turks were dispossessed and herded into ghettos. I have seen the graves in some of those ghettos. There are no men in them because, as was the case with the Serbians after them, the men were moved on. God knows where they are. I saw

only graves of Turkish Cypriot babies, women and old men. Nobody can tell me that warm words from President Clerides will alter any of that history.
When a fascist Greek junta, which some of our people do not seem to mind too much, took over the island in 1974, Süleyman Demirel, the president of Turkey, pleaded with my Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, and my Foreign Secretary, Jim Callaghan, "For goodness sake, do something about this. Our people have been herded into ghettos and massacred. The treaty of guarantee says that powers should operate to stop this." Did we do anything? No, we did nothing; so Turkey did, and I congratulate it on that.
The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who appears to be falling asleep, asked earlier why British troops are still in Cyprus. That comes down to a matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) referred. The treaty of guarantee said that guarantor powers would move in to stay and move out only when it was possible. It is not possible to move out.

Mr. Steve McCabe: I am listening with interest to my hon. Friend's comments. I confess that I, too, have recently visited Cyprus. My trip was sponsored by Friends of Cyprus. I am curious about my hon. Friend's reaction to the behaviour of Mr. Denktas, the Turkish authorities and the military, especially given that there is now a minority of Turkish Cypriots in Cyprus, since they have been replaced by Turkish troops and Anatolians who were brought in by Mr. Denktas. Is not that worse than the events that my hon. Friend is discussing?

Mr. Cann: It is certainly not worse. Incidentally, I ought to mention—I apologise for not doing so before—that I am a friend of Turkish north Cyprus. I have also been to the south of the island—but that is another matter. What my hon. Friend has said is not correct. The vast majority of people who live in the Turkish republic of north Cyprus are Cypriots. It is a secular democratic republic on a western model. Hon. Members shake their heads. Perhaps they have not been there; perhaps they ought to go there; perhaps I ought to invite them; perhaps I ought to try to get them there.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: I have been there.

Mr. Cann: My hon. Friend will know then that in shaking his head, he is very wrong.

Mr. Hawkins: Despite what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, does he nevertheless concede that, about two and a half years ago, the late Lord Finsberg, as a member of the Council of Europe, was required to report on people in the illegally occupied area? His report confirmed that quite appalling human rights abuses had been imposed by Mr. Denktas on those in the territory of the illegal regime. How does the hon. Gentleman respond to that recent history?

Mr. Cann: It must be very recent. It is also a total nonsense, as anyone who has visited the place knows.

Mr. Dismore: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Cann: No; please let me make a little progress.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions will most definitely mean that some hon. Members will be squeezed out of the debate.

Mr. Cann: If I may, I shall continue making my argument.
This country let down the Turkish Cypriots. The Turkish army moved in to protect the interests of the Turkish Cypriots, and since 1974, there has never been a solution that would have been acceptable to both Greek and Turkish Cypriots.
Throughout those 24 or 25 years, all public opinion, and all the pressure in the press and from this place, has always been in support of the Greek Cypriots. Everything that the Turkish Cypriots do, and everything that the Turks as a nation do, is deprecated by the House. That is historically incorrect.
Finally—

Mr. Love: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Cann: No, I shall not. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have his own say.
Turkey is a country of 70 million people. It is a buttress of NATO in the whole of that area, and has been a strong and good friend of this country. Turkish Cypriots have been strong and good friends of our soldiers, too, when Greek Cypriots were shooting them in the back in the name of EOKA.
As well as the justice of the case for the Turkish Cypriots, we should consider the interests of this country. If we try to bring a divided Cyprus into the European Union—

Mr. Love: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Cann: No, I will not.
Would we be doing ourselves a favour if we brought in a divided Cyprus? No. Would we be doing the European Union or NATO a favour? No. The treaty that we left behind us laid down that Cyprus would be undivided, with bicameral government and a leadership split between the two communities. That has been abrogated for 25 years.
Until we get back to that situation, we must ensure that Cyprus does not join the European Union. It is wrong to do as my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting did and call Mr. Clerides "President Clerides", because under the treaty that we left behind, he is not the president. He is a minority leader, because the island is not united, and until it is, it should not be allowed to join the European Union.

Sir Sydney Chapman: We can all put our own interpretations on past events in the beautiful island of Cyprus, but I want to look to the future. I shall be brief. There are two developments relating to Cyprus

that I would like to see. First, I fervently hope to see the reunification of the island after 24 years in which 38 per cent. of it has been illegally occupied. Secondly, I want to see Cyprus's application to join the European Union succeed.
I listened carefully to Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions yesterday, and lest there be any misunderstanding, I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that the reunification of Cyprus is a separate issue from Cyprus's application to join the European Union, and that one is not dependent on the other. She did not say that, but columns 143 and 145 of yesterday's Hansard give rise to some ambiguity. I would like the simple assurance that the accession of Cyprus to the European Union will not be held up because, and if, the island remains divided.
Cyprus is especially well qualified to join the EU. My research shows that it is one of the few countries in Europe—including most of the 11, from a total of 15, countries that are to launch the single currency on 1 January—that could meet the Maastricht convergence criteria straight away.
I am somewhat confused and perplexed about the initiatives now taking place. There seem to be three special representatives trying to do their bit to solve the Cyprus problem. First, there is the omnipresent Richard Holbrooke, President Clinton's special adviser—but as soon as the dust settled on his visit to Cyprus, I discovered that he was in Kosovo. I wonder where he is now.
Secondly, there is our own Sir David Hannay, a most respected diplomat whom I know and admire. I remember him in particular as the British permanent representative at the United Nations from 1990 to 1995. Third on the scene is Ann Hercus—to give her her proper title, the United Nations Secretary-General's alternate special representative.
I wish them all well in their endeavours, but it is vital that there be a co-ordinated strategy to tackle the Cyprus problem. I believe that the United States must play a key role in helping the co-guarantors to find a solution, because the best prospect for the reunification of Cyprus is to deal with it as part of wider international concerns. That is a question of realpolitik.
I share the view of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) that Turkey is a valued member of NATO. It is also a valued member of the Council of Europe, and I want to see it as a member of the European Union—provided, of course, that it can meet the economic and human rights criteria. If Turkey can join, that will help to establish peace and security in that part of Europe.

Mr. Cann: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Sydney Chapman: I shall not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. I would prefer hon. Members to make their points in their own speeches, rather than in the middle—or rather, at the end—of mine.
For 24 years, the world has failed to deal with the division of Cyprus, and it behoves us to realise that we have a special responsibility not only as a co-guarantor, but because Cyprus is a Commonwealth country. What is needed is good will, as well as give and take on both sides of the green line which is the tragedy of Cyprus.

Mr. Eddie O'Hara: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on having called for a debate on the important subject of Cyprus. It is frustrating to have to be brief on such an important topic, but I shall do my utmost.
Much has been said, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann), about the legal, historical and constitutional situation, but let me explain that constitutionally, the treaty of guarantee still stands, and President Clerides is recognised as president of the Republic of Cyprus. Politically, the United Nations recognises the Republic of Cyprus and does not recognise the so-called Turkish republic of northern Cyprus; only Turkey recognises that.
As for the recent legal situation, the Loizidou case has been mentioned, and we must put on record the fact that an important by-product of the judgment at Strasbourg was that the judges held that Turkey was responsible for all that now happens in northern Cyprus because Turkey is in occupation. Turkey is in the dock, not the so-called Turkish republic of northern Cyprus, which has no constitutional or legal status whatever.
There has been much interpretation and reinterpretation of history, but let us accept that there were atrocities by extremists on both sides in the early days in the 1960s. It saddens me that all the literature that I receive from supporters of the so-called Turkish republic of northern Cyprus always refers back to them, and never forwards. There have been no atrocities since then, except officially sponsored atrocities by the authorities in northern Cyprus, such as the fairly recent events involving Tassos Isaac and Solomos Solomou.
In 1974 an illegal attempt was made by a Government outside Cyprus to overthrow the legally appointed Government of that island, including an attempt to assassinate the president. That attempt was overthrown within days; mercifully, it did not succeed. Under the treaty of guarantee, Turkey certainly had the right to intervene to restore the status quo, but it did not have the right to stay in occupation for 24 years and perpetrate the further waves of invasion that took in Famagusta.
I declare an interest in that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), I am an honorary citizen of Famagusta. I am proud to say, "Epitimos Ammahostianos".
There was some justification for Turkey's actions in 1974. One might question the brutality of the intervention, but it would not be profitable to do so. The sad thing is that, since 1974, there has been a major exercise in ethnic cleansing in northern Cyprus.

Mr. Cann: indicated dissent

Mr. O'Hara: The Cuco report to the Council of Europe, some half a dozen years ago, expressed concern even then that the population of Epoiki—the immigrants into northern Cyprus—was on the point of exceeding that of the native Turkish Cypriots, who had emigrated to Australia, Canada, New Zealand and north London.
There have been assassinations of people in northern Cyprus who have dared to question the Government line.

Mr. Cann: Nonsense.

Mr. O'Hara: There have been assassinations—they are on record. There is a lot of evidence to show that typical Turkish Cypriots now feel like refugees in their own country.
All of that is negative, and I would rather be positive. Every day that passes matters in the solution of the Cyprus problem. That is the difference between the Cyprus and Northern Ireland problems. Time was always on the side of a solution in Northern Ireland and, please God, we shall get that solution sooner rather than later. However, the concrete is setting and the barriers are rising every day between the two communities in Cyprus—most of whom lived harmoniously with each other for hundreds of years. The danger is that they will lose the habit of living together, and they will be forced to lose that habit if the situation continues as it is.
It is negative to look back, and it is negative to talk about the confederation of two separate republics in Cyprus. There are positive opportunities, such as the accession of Cyprus to the EU. That offers benefits for all Cypriots, Greek and Turkish. It would be particularly beneficial to the Turkish Cypriots, because the situation over the past 24 years has done such grievous damage to the well-being of Turkish Cypriots. I remember going to the far north with my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting and seeing Turkish Cypriot villages where the people were living in absolute destitution. However, those people do not have the political means of expressing their opposition to what is going on.
I call upon the Turkish Government to stop their bellicose rhetoric. If they want a solution, and if they want the S300s out of Cyprus, they must accept the offer of President Clerides to demilitarise the island. That can be done in phases, and in ways that would ensure the confidence of the Turkish Cypriot people in their security.
Finally, I echo the words of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman). Important as the solution of the Cyprus problem would be—everyone in the Chamber today is desperately keen to have a just and lasting solution to the Cyprus problem—there are bigger benefits to be gained if the problem were solved. Without a solution to the Cyprus problem, we will never resolve the differences between Greece and Turkey. Greece and Turkey are neighbours—they live better together in peaceful co-existence. If Greece and Turkey could live together in peaceful co-existence and co-operation, the benefits for the whole of the western world—and particularly for south-eastern Europe and the Mediterranean area—would be inestimable.

Mr. David Heath: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on securing the debate, but the great tragedy of our debates on Cyprus is that there is never enough time for the many hon. Members who have an interest in the subject to be able to express their views. That is a great shame, and I hope that we can have a longer debate at some stage.
This is the third such debate in which I have spoken. I am a little bemused to find myself the only Front-Bench survivor, in that the Government and the Conservative party both have new Front-Bench speakers.
I make no apologies for repeating points that have been made on previous occasions, as I believe that they still hold good. It is essential for those Members of Parliament who speak with passion and knowledge on matters associated with Cyprus to recognise the fact that both communities have genuine fears and concerns about the other community and the other players in the region. Those have to be recognised and seen as part of the solution as it develops.
I still see the future of Cyprus as being the same as the position that I anticipate the Minister will indicate when she replies on behalf of the Government—that bizonal, bicommunal, federal solution which has been the basis of so much work over the years and remains the basis of the United Nations resolutions on the subject.
I also see the application of Cyprus to join the EU as an essential part of the process. It would be wholly beneficial for Cyprus to become a member of the EU, and it would be particularly advantageous to northern Cyprus, because—as the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) said—of the economic disadvantage that northern Cyprus has suffered during the years of partition. If there is any sector within the island that would benefit greatly from accession to the EU—which I hope will be at an earlier, rather than a later stage—it is the people in northern Cyprus.
There are some member states of the EU which are slightly embarrassed by the fact that the application from Cyprus is being treated in the same way as the five other current applications. They are wrong to be embarrassed and wrong to see Cyprus as a separate case. Cyprus has a significant problem in its recent history, but it has many attributes that would be of benefit to the EU and mutually beneficial to the island of Cyprus.
I look forward to the day when Turkey can be welcomed into the family of European nations. There are major obstacles to that, but I congratulate the British Government on maintaining contact with Turkey during the British EU presidency and on making sure that Turkey has not been excluded from EU affairs at a critical stage.
We all share the disappointment at the further militarisation of the island, the addition of military hardware, the overflights we have seen and the inevitable increases in tension which have resulted from that. We all share the view of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), who wished the three special envoys well. I understand why Richard Holbrooke has had other priorities, but I hope that he will now give his full attention to the problems of Cyprus, because America is a key player.
Britain is also a key player. We are in a unique position in respect of the island of Cyprus as a guarantor nation. If I am to express any disappointment about the position of the Government, it is that I do not think that sufficient energy has been applied to the Cyprus question over the past six or seven months, and during the British presidency.
We last discussed the matter on 29 October last year—when we were nearing the end of the Luxembourg presidency—just after a summit at a place called

Mondorf-les-Bains, a town which has slipped back into obscurity since that important meeting. I asked the then Minister for Europe what had transpired at the meeting and what progress the Government had sought and accomplished in terms of Cyprus. I expressed the view that the British presidency would put Cyprus at the top of the priority list, so key was the achievement of an acceptable solution there. Perhaps the guarantor powers should get together again to see what they can do to support constructively the communities in Cyprus as they try to achieve a peaceful solution.
An additional factor is the substantial Cypriot communities within this country. Perversely, those expatriates may be part of the key to the solution. If we can engender better understanding between the Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities in London and elsewhere in this country, we might achieve a better solution in Cyprus. Hon. Members feel passionately about this subject and often express the views of significant communities within their constituencies. However, we do not assist the peace process if we become too partisan—if we become two groups of cheerleaders in the House for the different communities in Cyprus rather than seeing the common view, which is that peace there is to the advantage of both communities and that a peaceful solution is encompassed within the bizonal solution for which we have strived for so long and within an understanding between the two communities of the tensions that surround them.
On that note, I will sit down, but I hope that the Minister will be able to explain the positive moves that the British Government can make in the next six months, which are as critical to the future of Cyprus as the previous six months and the six before that. While the European Union application is on the table, we must make substantive progress towards arriving at a satisfactory solution to the problems in Cyprus.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: I have also recently visited Cyprus as a guest of Morphou and the Friends of Cyprus. Time is short and I shall make only a couple of brief points.
First, on the Loizidou case, I also visited people in the north with the consent of the Government of Cyprus and, as a lawyer, I had discussions with northern Cypriot lawyers. I was concerned at the approach towards the rule of law, which seemed to suggest that the Loizidou case was political and could, therefore, be ignored. We must get over the message to the Turks and the Turkish Cypriots that one cannot pick and choose as regards decisions of the European Court.
Secondly, a number of other cases have arisen on the back of Loizidou, including that of a Turkish Cypriot paediatrician who is also taking action against the Turkish Government because he is prevented from visiting the south to talk with his fellow professionals. We must convince the Turkish Government and Turkish Cypriots in the north that the ban on bicommunal contact on the island between people in the north and south must be stopped. If we are to have any chance of getting the two sides together, there must be contact between the two communities. The authorities have been unable to prevent such contact off the island—there have been contacts between professionals, business people and students.


If we are to have any chance of securing peace, those contacts must resume and I hope that the Minister will make it clear that we will do all we can to ensure that Mr. Denktas's ban is lifted forthwith.

Mr. Michael Trend: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on securing this important debate. In his excellent speech, he combined passion with clarity, which is a rare combination on such occasions.
Cyprus is a subject of deep concern to all parties in the House. It is an island with which the United Kingdom has had a long, historic association and a deep and continuing interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West and I regret the lack of progress in the matter recently, but the Cyprus question is a difficult one. Like many other contentious international areas that have been partitioned—Northern Ireland and Kashmir come to mind—Cyprus evokes heated debate, as the robust contributions from the hon. Members for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) and for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) demonstrated. Greece and Turkey hold different views on the status of Cyprus and so too do the legal Government of Cyprus and the so-called Turkish republic of northern Cyprus. Heated exchanges take place concerning the status of the various United Nations resolutions and treaties that govern the island. There are also tragic stories of atrocities and unfairness, displacement from homes and abuses of human rights. Pressure groups with their own agendas compete for political time and attention. They leap upon nuances of which speakers may be unaware. In short, it is a subject in which a misturned phrase can upset the best of intentions.
The Conservative party has paid close attention to developments in Cyprus. We condemned the brutal invasion in 1974. We drafted and secured the adoption of Security Council resolution 541 in 1984, which declared the Turkish Cypriot declaration of independence legally invalid. Since then, Cyprus has been discussed frequently in Parliament and elsewhere. The former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), and both his Foreign Secretaries, Lord Hurd and Sir Malcolm Rifkind, raised the future of Cyprus with their Turkish and Greek counterparts. Sir David Hannay was appointed special representative to Cyprus to assist in bringing the two sides together.
Our high commission in Nicosia encouraged intercommunal contact. Britain provided soldiers to the UN force that was monitoring the green line. Malcolm Rifkind made the first bilateral visit by a Foreign Secretary to Cyprus in December 1996, when he held discussions with President Clerides and Mr. Denktash. Those positive developments have been preserved by the present Government. I also commend the work done in the area in the previous Parliament and since by our former colleague from Edmonton, Dr. Ian Twinn. May I also say how pleased the Conservative party was at the re-election of President Clerides. We work closely with the Democratic Rally party through the European Democrat Union and enjoy the electoral success of fellow centre right parties in Europe—it is rare these days. We will also await with interest the results of the elections in the north of the island and in Turkey, as they may materially affect the future of Cyprus.
Our concern for the future of Cyprus has not diminished since we lost office in May 1997. We want an overall settlement. We want peace and stability on the island, with the two communities confident in their own rights and responsibilities. A settlement would help both Greece and Turkey to normalise their relationship and reduce their defence spending. A settlement would reduce the tension between two NATO nations and that tension is very real. A number of disturbing events have taken place in the past few months. We do not want further militarisation of the island. The stand-off over the acquisition of missiles by the Government of Cyprus and the response by the Turkish Government are disturbing and highlight the importance of achieving a lasting settlement. We also understand the concerns voiced by Greek Cypriots about Turkish settlement in the north. A reduction in Turkish troops in northern Cyprus would improve the climate for a negotiated settlement.
All parties must accept that Cyprus is a great source of instability in the region. That is why the previous Government made great efforts to assist in providing a solution. Under the new Government, Britain should continue to be involved closely with the search for a solution and should support attempts to bring about a lasting settlement.
I must make it clear where the Conservative party stands. The UN "Set of Ideas"—bizonal and bicommunal—that was submitted in 1992 remains central to discussion of the island's future. Only the two communities can decide what is acceptable and what is likely to last. Britain's role should be to offer advice and provide support for UN operations on the island and for international attempts to mediate between the two sides. The Opposition do not support the confederation proposal of Mr. Denktas, nor do we favour measures that would perpetuate rather than remedy the present division of the island.
Britain, as one of the three guarantors of Cyprus with Greece and Turkey, has a special interest in the island's future. Our sovereign bases are of strategic importance. We will support the Government and the international community in attempts to bring about a peaceful and lasting settlement.
Conservatives support the European Union's decision to open accession negotiations with Cyprus, which was the main thrust of the speech by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). We hope that a solution can be found so that the whole island can join. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) said, we are firm in our belief that no country outside the European Union should have the power to veto EU membership. The criteria for joining are set out and countries that meet those criteria should be allowed in. That is a clear message for those who may try to block the accession or intimidate the recognised Government of Cyprus to prevent them from pursuing their application for membership.
I agree strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), who said in his excellent speech that we should also support Turkey's aim to join the European Union one day, but only when it clearly meets human rights and other criteria. However, the handling of Turkey was one of the less successful aspects of the British presidency of the European Union. Instead of considering Turkey as a potential member and friend, the Government treated it as a threat and in return,


the Turkish Government have turned their back on the EU for the moment. Turkey is a key NATO ally and has an important geopolitical role. We do not want Turkey to be turned away from the path of the west, as that will only endanger stability in the region, especially the stability of Cyprus.
The prize is great. Cyprus can expect to be host to almost a million United Kingdom tourists this year alone—perhaps more. It is a most beautiful island. More visitors will go there if it is reunited. Cyprus offers unique access to markets and a skilled, educated and energetic population of both Greek and Turkish origin.
The economic benefits of a settlement would act as a springboard for further growth and opportunity on the island. Overseas investment—from the United Kingdom, for example—would be strengthened and encouraged. We want a successful and united Cyprus, where both communities co-operate together freely, with confidence in their future and that of their shared island.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on his good fortune in securing this debate and on his choice of subject. There is no doubt, given his and other hon. Members' contributions, that this is a matter of keen interest, about which many hon. Members have a great deal of knowledge.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) said, although this is my first Adjournment debate on Cyprus as a Foreign Office Minister, I have spoken in similar debates from the Opposition Front Bench, and so I have been obliged to reflect on what has changed in the past few years. Since the de facto division of the island some 25 years ago, progress has been frustratingly slow, but some new elements in the current situation should encourage us to make strenuous efforts to ensure that a settlement is reached.
The Government's position is clear. We remain committed to working for a comprehensive political settlement that would bring the two communities of Cyprus together within a single, sovereign state. The international community has also made it clear that it wants that state to consist of a bicommunal, bizonal federation and that such a state would have its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded. Moreover, the political settlement should exclude any form of partition, secession or union—in whole or in part—with any other country.
I am glad that, in this debate, there has been cross-party support for that approach, to which we have subscribed for many years. I am also glad that there have been few efforts to make distinctions between the policies pursued by this Government and the previous Government—or, indeed, by other political parties. I noted a slight remonstrance from the Liberal Democrat spokesman to the effect that the Government have been back-pedalling or going slow, but I do not accept that that is so. Since I took up my current post at the end of July, I have been struck by the number of meetings and initiatives on Cyprus in which we are involved and the proportion of my time that is taken up with the matter, although I do

not regret that. Now that the United Kingdom no longer has the presidency of the European Union, some of the initiatives may not receive as much publicity, but we are none the less actively engaged in a variety of ways, to which I hope, despite the shortness of time, I shall be able to refer.
We subscribe and determinedly keep to the policy that I have outlined for a number of reasons. First, in 1960, both sides agreed to a single state based on political equality between the two communities as the basis for the newly independent Cyprus; it seems reasonable to assume that, with international help and advice, they could do so again. Secondly, although I understand the fears and insecurities of people in both communities, we remain convinced that a united Cyprus in which the rights of both communities are respected is the best assurance of the future security and prosperity of all on the island of Cyprus. We believe that the two communities can create a way ahead that would allow a united, stable and prosperous Cyprus to enter the new millennium. We should be encouraged by the efforts that have been made in other situations across the world, including some close to home—in Northern Ireland—to achieve a settlement even when the historical circumstances have been difficult. We must focus on what we can achieve and bend all our efforts to that end.
As has been said, the United Kingdom is in a unique position, not only as a guarantor power, but as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and as a member of the European Union. Given those three elements of responsibility, we are committed to using our position to do all that we can to bring about a just and lasting settlement. A solution must be achieved through peaceful dialogue, which is why we support the UN Secretary-General's efforts to broker a settlement. We believe that his approach offers the best way forward; indeed, we committed ourselves to making progress in that way at the UN General Assembly in September, when the Secretary-General and his staff held talks on Cyprus with the different countries involved.
The support of the Secretary-General's mission of good offices is important, and I was pleased that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) referred to the work on the island of Dame Ann Hercus, to whom I pay tribute. She is a well-respected New Zealand politician, who we believe can make a real contribution; her efforts to develop on-island contacts between the parties to reduce tensions and promote progress are extremely important. Our representative Sir David Hannay, who was also referred to, continues to be extremely energetic and to work closely with Dame Ann Hercus, which we should all welcome.
On the new elements that I mentioned, we welcome all attempts to think constructively about a settlement for Cyprus, but we do not believe that Mr. Denktas's proposals are consistent with the objective of a bizonal, bicommunal federation. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting mentioned Cyprus's application to join the European Union, which we very much welcome. I have read the columns of Hansard to which the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet referred; they do not read ambiguously to me, but I assure him that we do not accept that anyone has a veto on the process of EU accession. Obviously, we want moves towards a settlement of the Cyprus problem to proceed as quickly as possible, but that is not a pre-condition of accession.
None the less, we attach importance to associating Turkish Cypriots with the accession process, however difficult that may be. We regret the continuing Turkish Cypriot refusal to take up the offer of participation in the team that is negotiating the terms of accession. We and our EU partners believe that it would be in their interests to do so, and we shall continue to point out the benefits of such participation.
Some hon. Members referred to the often very good relationships between Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities in the United Kingdom. When speaking to representatives of both those communities, I have often detected a great deal of support for the idea of Cyprus belonging to the European Union; they feel that accession would be in the interest of Cyprus's prosperity and that it should proceed constructively. It will be much better if the Turkish Cypriots take part in the process, but they do not have a veto and neither does Turkey.
Some hon. Members referred to military tensions. I agree that we do not want those tensions to increase either in Cyprus or in the neighbouring region, and we have urged restraint on all sides.

World Trade Organisation

11 am

Dr. Howard Stoate: As the only general practitioner among Labour Members of Parliament, my main area of interest is health policy: how we treat our citizens when they fall ill or are injured, and how the national health service is organised to meet their increasing needs.
A major plank of the Government's health plans is to improve our health through public health measures and preventive medicine, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that environmental factors have a significant impact on health. The incidence of asthma in children has risen by 50 per cent. in the past 30 years; the next generation is already suffering from the mistakes of the last.
The World Health Organisation claimed last week in The Independent that 30 per cent. of cancers of the breast, colon and prostate are associated with nutrition; the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health has just published a report linking air pollution with some childhood cancers; and holes in the ozone layer are leading to an increase in skin cancer. The fact is that the incidence of cancer is increasing: breast cancer has doubled in the past 50 years, sperm counts are falling and there is increasing evidence that there is a close link with environmental factors; but we do not yet understand the scale and scope of the problem.
It is becoming increasingly clear that, if our initiatives on public health are to bring significant results, "Our Healthier Nation" needs to live within our healthier planet.
My constituents in Dartford regularly raise animal welfare concerns with me, through correspondence and meetings. We are an animal-loving nation and we have many organisations that do important work to protect animals. Environmental, animal welfare and health issues are inextricably linked. Wild animals rely on the environment for their habitats, and domesticated animals are affected by our attitudes to farming and meeting the world's food needs. Our responses to the challenges posed on environmental issues will have a direct impact on the health of individuals and populations throughout the world.
Over the past half-century, our food and the methods used to produce it have changed beyond recognition. The use of growth hormones, antibiotics, pesticides and other chemicals has hugely increased food production and yields but it also affects the health not only of our people but of the planet.
The revolution in food is not over. Scientific advances are bringing further benefits and further threats. Genetically modified food is already on supermarket shelves and seems set to increase rapidly in the future.
New farming methods used in raising livestock have taken our exploitation of animals to extremes that many—some quite literally—find unpalatable. Changes in food production and distribution methods have brought great advantages for consumers. The market now offers consumers an enormous range of food and drink from all continents.
Choice has never been greater, and the great British consumer has learnt to exercise that choice and to use his or her economic power to bring positive benefits. Notably,


CFCs in aerosols have been banned, thanks in large part to consumers who switched to buying the less harmful and, importantly, similarly priced alternatives. It is now difficult to find tuna that has not been caught with rod and line, which helps to protect dolphins. Producers have had to change their methods or lose their markets. Cruelty-free cosmetics are continuing their rise in popularity, reflecting the public's concerns over animal testing.
The consumer movement has had its successes and its failures. The markets for environmentally friendly detergents and fairly traded goods have not—so far—developed far enough to bring about the changes in buying patterns needed to transform production methods. Consumer-led changes in the market are possible only when alternative products are available and can compete in the marketplace on both quality and price. There will be occasions when Government action is needed, to offer incentives for certain production methods and disincentives for others.
The marketplace is now global; the problems are global; and solutions must also be global.
Trade is a good thing. Trade liberalisation is, in general, to be welcomed as it increases prosperity. Economic protectionism is almost always short-termist and short-sighted. It is better for all concerned if trade takes place in a rules-based system. A free-for-all leaves weaker economies at the mercy of the stronger. I support the general agreement on tariffs and trade—GATT—and welcome the creation of the World Trade Organisation.
I support the WTO's desire to press liberalisation further in the millennium round, as that could have a positive impact on existing protectionist practices such as the common agricultural policy; but I called for this debate because, in my view, the WTO has failed adequately to address the social, environmental and animal welfare issues in our global trading network.
In fact, I do the World Trade Organisation a disservice. Rather than simply failing to address the issues, it has, through its actions, worked against the implementation of measures introduced to protect our environment.
The essential principle of the GATT system is non-discrimination. Countries are not allowed to discriminate against imports on grounds of country of origin, or to favour their own producers. That does not mean that there are no grounds on which they are permitted to discriminate. Article XX of the general agreement allows exceptions to World Trade Organisation rules under certain circumstances. One such exception is for
measures necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health.
Unfortunately, WTO rulings in practice have often led to judgments that have not protected humans, animals or the environment.
There are many examples: legislators and citizens throughout the European Union have expressed concern over the use of growth-accelerating hormones in cattle. Although there is no absolute proof, there is strong evidence to suggest that those chemicals can cause an increase in cancers and male infertility. In reaction to that concern, the European Union introduced a ban on the sale

of meat and meat products from animals on which six specified hormones had been used to accelerate growth—a ban which, it should be noted, was to apply equally to domestic and foreign producers in an entirely non-discriminatory manner.
The ban was challenged by the United States on the grounds that it imposed unfair trade barriers. The World Trade Organisation panel ruled that the ban would violate world trade agreements and was not scientifically justified, but it admitted that the hormones in question have a carcinogenic potential. That decision favoured the US in allowing its hormone-saturated beef into the European market, but the US does not always get its own way. In 1990, environmentalists in America passed an amendment to the Clean Air Act requiring oil refineries to produce cleaner petrol. The law would affect areas such as Los Angeles that are classified as grossly falling below clean air standards. Required improvements were to vary depending on a baseline of standards achieved in 1990.
The problem, and the reason for World Trade Organisation involvement, was that it was impossible to obtain accurate baseline figures for petrol produced in refineries outside the USA. It was decided to use as a base figure the US industry average, which ensured that imported petrol sold from 1990 onwards in areas with specific clean air problems would have to be cleaner than the US average of 1990, while the US industry would have to clean up its own supply in order to access the same markets.
The appeal this time came from Brazil and Venezuela, which claimed that the system unfairly excluded their dirtier and more polluting fuel from the US market—and they won. The World Trade Organisation again sacrificed environmental and public health concerns on the altar of unrestricted free trade. The US Environmental Protection Agency was forced to introduce less effective regulations, thus setting back the aim of cleaner air for American cities.
It must be galling for environmental campaigners to have worked hard for years within the democratic process to implement legislation, only to have all their good work undone.
Much publicity has been given recently to the so-called shrimp-turtle case, in which US measures to ban imports of shrimps caught in nets that also trap and kill turtles were deemed illegal. Free trade ideologues argue that under GATT, a state is allowed to protect only its own wildlife, not that of other countries. The situation is more complicated than it seems, and charges of protectionism have been levelled at the US.
On closer inspection of the details of the shrimp-turtle ruling, it appears that the judgment was not as damaging to environmental protection as the headlines suggest, and that the US was guilty of banning all imports from particular countries without distinguishing between those caught in turtle-friendly nets and those not. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on the implications of the shrimp-turtle ruling, and a statement from the British Government on their approach to the problem.
This may sound an arcane or academic dispute, but far from it. News came last week that Canada is taking the French Government to the WTO to complain about a French ban on white asbestos, yet in France alone, 2,000 people a year die of cancer caused by asbestos. I urge the


Government to support the French case robustly and, more importantly, to introduce a ban on white asbestos in the UK as soon as possible.
There have been threats from American-based multinationals to take the UK Government to the WTO if they seek to limit the introduction of genetically modified crops or food to the UK. I hope that the Government will resist that pressure. If there are concerns about the impact on either human health or the environment, our Government have not only the right but a duty to act.
I accept that the WTO has a difficult job to balance its judgments between extreme protectionism and total free-market deregulation. A third way needs to be found between those two positions; note that I got the third way in there—I thought it important to do so. The WTO must draw a line when deciding which restrictions are justified and on what grounds. It has acted decisively and strongly and drawn a line in the sand, but unfortunately it is in entirely the wrong place.
In these decisions, the WTO seems to be saying that it will not allow Government to have any control over production methods of imported food. It will intervene only when we can prove that food kills people. The bias is weighted too far in favour of unlimited free trade and against our health and environment.
The WTO fails to distinguish between non-product process and production methods. Those are methods of producing goods that cannot be seen in the final product. I could not distinguish by sight or taste between two bananas, the first grown on a small farm in the Caribbean, providing essential jobs and a strong economy for the home nation, and the second grown on a huge, intensively farmed plantation using large quantities of pesticides and owned by a multinational corporation.
The WTO can recognise the differences in process and production methods, but chooses not to. Current practice does not allow distinctions based on different production methods to be made, irrespective of the damage that some methods may cause. My criticism of the WTO is that it has taken anti-protectionism too far and effectively banned the legislation that is needed to improve our environment.
I want the Government to press our European Union partners and other GATT signatories to recognise the right of nations to take action to discourage socially and environmentally damaging processes. It is already accepted that it is allowable to ban goods that are produced by slave or prison labour. It should be equally allowable to ban goods that are produced in an environmentally destructive manner. The Government should press strongly for the right of states to take measures to protect the health and well-being of their populations and environment.
The primary purpose of GATT is to
raise the standard of living, ensure full employment and economic growth, develop the full uses of the resources of the world and expand the trade in goods".
I do not believe that that purpose and social and environmental protection are mutually exclusive. The essence of the third way—I put it in again, please notice—in this and other sectors is that, although we cannot have the best of both worlds, we can eradicate the worst. We can have environmental legislation without preventing the global market from operating effectively. We can accept

the reality and the benefits of trading within a world market economy without sacrificing social and humanitarian values.
Considering its power over everyone's lives, the WTO is a shadowy and secretive body; the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England is a model of democratic openness by comparison. The WTO is staffed mainly by trade professionals who place the goal of liberalisation above all else. It is resistant to the notion of dialogue with civil society. Its appellate body, which adjudicates on disputes, is shrouded in so much mystery and jargon that few outsiders have a chance of understanding what is going on, let alone influencing it.
The British Government should lead a campaign to open up the WTO's workings. These issues are too important to be left to professional trade negotiators. We all have a stake in the outcome. We have a right to know what is going on and to make representations if we do not like the way things are going.
The key to the operation of any rules-based system is, first, how the rules are written and, secondly, who interprets and applies them. There is certainly scope for the GATT clauses on social and environmental protection to be made clearer and less ambiguous, but there will always be room for dispute about the precise meaning, so the role of the WTO and the way in which it adjudicates on disputes is crucial.
Developing countries' Governments are often suspicious of talk of building environmental protection into global trading systems. They see it as yet another way in which the rich north will exploit them: a smokescreen to hide economic protectionism to keep their goods out. There is no doubt that some of those who argue against trade liberalisation on ostensibly environmental grounds are motivated more by selfish than by altruistic concerns.
We need to find ways to structure the system so that developing countries' fears are reduced. More openness would help here, but there is a still greater need for some acts of good faith by the developed world to demonstrate a willingness to dismantle protectionist barriers. In effect, there is a need for a new global bargain, in which the developed world ends some of its existing, unjustifiable discrimination, in return for the developing world accepting the legitimacy of discrimination against products and processes that damage the environment or involve unacceptable social practices.
Financial incentives for environmental, social and animal welfare production methods can be introduced. Technology transfer, aid, grants and loans should be used to assist developing nations to attain the economic growth that they need without a similar growth in pollution. Consumer power must be enhanced with mandatory labelling schemes, so that shoppers are aware of how the products that they are choosing reached the shelf; the emphasis of the WTO must be moved from suppliers to consumers. Most importantly, we must work to establish multilateral agreements on a wide range of issues to ensure that pressure for action on environmental and animal welfare issues is broad based and international and can deliver results.
I ask the Minister to address these issues, in partnership with our friends in Europe, the Commonwealth and the rest of the world, in the next WTO round next year. I believe that a reasonable balance can be found between


trade liberalisation and environmental protection and animal welfare. I urge the Government to make that a high priority in their negotiating objectives for the next WTO round and to take the lead in persuading our partners throughout the world to do likewise.
Matters of this importance to the entire global economy and environment must not be left in the hands of unaccountable trade negotiators; such delicate matters must be under democratic political control. Last year, the EU trade commissioner called for a high-level meeting to take the trade and environment agenda forward. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what has happened since, what the UK is doing to ensure that such a meeting takes place and what he proposes to offer for our side of the bargain.
The Prime Minister said at this year's WTO ministerial meeting:
Governments need to consider the environmental impact of everything they do, including in the trade sphere".
I wholeheartedly agree. We also need to ensure that further liberalisation does not undermine existing, hard won standards of social protection. How then do the Government propose to ensure that environmental and social concerns are at the heart of the millennium trade round?
If we get the agenda right, the next 50 years can be as successful in promoting trade as the last fifty. If we do not, we will see a gradual but steady erosion of free trade as the backlash takes hold. We have already seen the beginnings of that with the American public's hostility to the North American Free Trade Agreement. A Government committed to freeing the global economy from restrictive practices cannot afford to ignore people's legitimate concerns to safeguard the environment and social protection. I am confident that this Government will not make that mistake.

Mr. Norman Baker: May I first say how pleased I am that this debate is taking place and congratulate the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on his comments? I agree with virtually everything he said. He crammed a lot into 15 minutes. I hope that, today, we will receive some assurances from the Minister that the Government view the matter with the same gravity as the hon. Members who are present in this reasonably well-attended debate on a Wednesday morning. I hope also that he will tell us how they intend to tackle this hugely important matter.
May I remind the Minister that an early-day motion on this very subject, which I tabled with other Members earlier this session, has now been signed by almost 100 Members? It shows clear support and concern for the thrust of this debate—concern that is cross-party, I think—and Members' determination to ensure that the Government take this issue seriously.
I believe that the Government's intentions are honourable and sensible in this matter, but I wonder whether they have the will power; I hope that I will have the assurance today that they do.
The hon. Member for Dartford mentioned genetically modified food. I raised that matter with the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,

who has responsibility for food safety, in the Select Committee on Environmental Audit. There was great sympathy from him on that occasion, but he said, "We are not in the driving seat"—that was his exact phrase.
That may be true, but the Government must get into the driving seat and ensure that they control events. It may not be easy. There may be opposition from the American Government and others, but the Government have to force this issue and ensure that the environmental, animal welfare and social concerns that all hon. Members share, I think, are taken into account. They must not throw up their hands and say, "We cannot do anything about it." I hope that the Government will take that seriously; I am confident that they will.
Of course my party supports free trade—that is nothing new from Liberals—but we are not Manchester Liberals. We think that the market has to be regulated to achieve social, environmental and welfare ends. Part of the problem with the WTO is that it could stand for Welfare Taken Out, for the reasons cited by the hon. Member for Dartford. We must have free trade, but we must not be afraid to regulate it. There would be no reason for our being here if we simply let the market rule without trying to influence it. That is why we have specific concerns about the WTO and the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
Environmental, social or welfare concerns raised by any nation or group of nations are being challenged across the world. The lowest common denominator will triumph unless our Parliament and the world community prevent that. The basic rules of GATT are being manipulated towards that end, although that is not GATT's purpose. The original purpose of GATT must be re-emphasised.
The hon. Member for Dartford set out his several examples extremely well. There is a conflict between different international agreements. We have WTO and GATT on one hand, and other agreements such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species—CITES—and the biodiversity convention on the other; and we should overcome this disparity. The hon. Gentleman referred to turtles, a case in which the Americans—the good guys this time—are trying to honour CITES and to protect the turtles. Opposition has made protection difficult, however. We must clarify these international agreements.
Then there is the ban on the import of fur derived from the use of leg-hold traps. Hon. Members on both sides find it abhorrent that animals can be trapped in that way. They suffer for days on end, and either have their limbs chewed off by the traps or chew their limbs off themselves so that they can escape. We are importing fur to satisfy consumer demand, but even those consumers who want fur do not want animals to be captured in that way. However, we appear to be stuck with it. European Union attempts to introduce a sensible animal welfare policy on fur trapping have been challenged. It cannot he right that a small group of people who have a narrow vested interest in retaining the status quo can wipe out the rest of the world's concerns. The Government and the EU must have the backbone to challenge that opposition.
Social, environmental and animal welfare concerns also raise what might be called selfish issues for United Kingdom producers. Participants in Monday's agriculture debate may have heard me mention that our farmers


produce chickens to given standards, but are being undercut by the import of chickens from Thailand that are processed in the UK, then labelled British. Whenever we accept a lower welfare standard, we fail to raise welfare standards in other countries, and we face the danger that the higher standards that apply here will be driven down. Consumers believe that those chickens are British because of their labels. The consequence will not be that Thai farmers will stop keeping chickens in poor conditions, but that British chicken farming, which has higher standards—although conditions for British chickens are not brilliant—will close down because it is uneconomic.
Parliament should set an example, and should set out the ideals towards which we should strive. Basic decency says that animals should be treated acceptably. We must look after the environment, too. We cannot have standards driven down by international agreements that have been misinterpreted and skewed by small interest groups. If we are not successful in changing international rules, what is the point of having higher standards?
We should take a warning from the case of veal crates. We banned them, but the veal consequently imported from Europe is reared to much lower standards. We must get international agreement on such matters; otherwise, the good work done in the UK will be undermined elsewhere.
I want to mention two measures that the Government could take. First, article III of GATT could be amended to allow countries to distinguish between products on the basis of the way in which they have been produced. Secondly, article XX could be strengthened to allow trade measures to protect human, animal and plant life. Many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) will be able to catch the Speaker's eye.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: I want to deal with animal welfare, which is close to my heart. I am a trustee of Animal Defenders, an interest I declare now.
Aside from great political issues, the issue most raised in my postbag, and in those of most Members of Parliament, is animal welfare. Animal rights have come to the forefront over the past decade, and increasingly so during the past year or two. Many of us will remember the recent emotional debates on hunting with dogs, and the substantial vote against it. I was fortunate to be drawn to ask a question at the last Prime Minister's Question Time before the summer recess, and I asked my right hon. Friend to undertake to honour our party's pledge to deal with hunting with dogs, and to bring in a total ban on that detestable and despicable activity. I do not forecast that that will happen in the next Queen's Speech, but I expect it to be in the one after because of indications that have been floated. I am disappointed that the time has not yet come, but it will come over the next couple of years. The House will have another free and democratic vote on hunting.
Debates of this type are understandably emotional. However, we have all witnessed the cruel treatment of animals on our televisions. Experimentation and the transport of live animals for slaughter are unbearable to many people, especially young people—from students to primary school children. The advance of computers and new technology into the classroom has created a growing

potential for involvement by those youngsters, and that augurs well for the character of British society. That—if I may use the phrase—is the British way.
Our minimum standards for the export of animals mean that sheep are packed in by the hundred. Huge transporters, four tiers high, are used in Europe. There is supposed to be a mutual agreement that sheep must be watered after eight hours, but it does not happen. The average time without water is between 18 and 24 hours. I am told that sheep sometimes go 36 hours without feed of any kind.
Horses and ponies are sent in their thousands for slaughter abroad. As deputy leader of the British delegation to the Council of Europe, I know that countries have joined that organisation from eastern Europe where, with all due respect, people are indifferent to animal welfare. There are many circuses in that part of the world. We have tried to plead with delegates to introduce a code of conduct and to bring humanity to the care of animals.
To return to an earlier point, because of appalling slaughtering standards, the Government do not allow certain animal exports. The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) noted the existence of conflicting standards.
I cannot mention the establishment in question because it is in the constituency of another Member who is not present, but I recently tabled an early-day motion:
That this House condemns the appalling and deplorable trade practice at establishments that breed cats and kittens for the vivisection industry and sell them to laboratories worldwide; notes that some of these kittens are only six weeks old when they are subject to horrific experiments; and calls upon the Home Secretary to investigate this cruel trade".
Police protection for the establishment concerned has cost £1.5 million of taxpayers' money. There are others, unfortunately, involved in a cruel trade with barbaric practices that puts profit before humanity.
More and more people believe that it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer and die in the laboratory. We know that laboratory animals feel pain in the same way that we do. The law acknowledges that and science accepts it, too. Thousands of animals suffer and die in research laboratories to test cosmetics and toiletries such as lipstick, soap and shampoo. Many such products, which we use every day, have been paid for with suffering. Drips are put into the unprotected eyes of animals, rubbed into the raw, shaven backs of guinea pigs or forced down the throats of rats. I do not want to describe such things because the result is obviously not beautiful. We must consider when purchasing such things whether we should give the producers concerned our custom.
I want to say a few words about circus animals. Many hon. Members will have seen the recent video "The Ugliest Show on Earth". Only last week, a circus came to the field next to my home. No matter how well housed the animals were, or how much the circus tried to say that their welfare was assured, I could hear animals howling during the night. It was obvious that they were bored. It is a contemptible method of subjecting them to something unnatural. I went to the local authority, which is Labour-controlled, and which I used to lead, and pleaded. I asked why it had given these people a licence but there was no law that could stop it. The land was private. The circus was to stay for seven days. It could apply for 10 days; it stayed a fortnight. Unfortunately, we cannot control these things unless we want to legislate.
Animals do not smoke, drink alcohol, drive, use paints or drop bombs, but we do. If we do those things, why should they suffer for our weakness?

Dr. Nick Palmer: I declare a general interest in that I advise Novartis, a multinational company. It may have an interest in the matter, but I do not know its particular views. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on his excellent summary of the problem. He reflected the concern of many hon. Members and many among the general public.
We recently debated the multilateral agreement on investment. A broad spectrum of people mobilised opposition to the agreement as it stood, because of concerns about its impact on developing countries and their ability to protect their development in an environmentally friendly way that would be acceptable to most people in Britain. Many were surprised by the breadth of the opposition to the agreement in the form in which it stood, yet the discussion on the MAI was largely on the relatively narrow issue of the rights of developing countries. That is an important issue, but it engages only a certain number of non-governmental organisations.
In the Word Trade Organisation debate, concern comes from a very broad range of NGOs. There are the groups concerned with the environment. We all recognise now that the environment of one country affects the environment of all others. There are groups concerned with development and social issues, both in the third world and closer to home, and groups concerned with animal welfare. The hunting debate showed that the animal welfare organisations can mobilise massive popular support.
I predict that in many countries, but especially in Britain, if those groups together come to the conclusion that our policy on free trade is against the interests of their collective concerns, there will be a massive backlash against free trade, which is not in anyone's interests, because free trade has brought enormous benefits. We must ensure that the free trade agenda is not hijacked by narrow interests that are contemptuous of or indifferent to the concerns that we have raised. In the long run, that will damage us all.
In principle, the WTO and the organisations that expressed concern enjoy broad consensus. Nearly everyone agrees that free trade within reasonable limits is a positive thing, which has brought many benefits. Most people agree that environmental concerns are appropriate. We are all periodically nasty about ruthless capitalist companies that try to exploit the environment, but the reality is that relatively few companies have an active interest in eradicating life and destroying the environment around them, because it is bad for business. The companies accept in principle that they benefit from sensible environmental rules if they are stable, fair and non-discriminatory.
In the same way, in western Europe and north America, but in many other countries as well, it is accepted that it is desirable that production methods do not inflict great harm and suffering on animals. In particular, it is widely accepted that consumers should have the option of

avoiding products of whose production methods they do not approve. It is not widely recognised that it may be illegal to inform consumers about the way in which products are produced in certain circumstances.
Most people believe that the rules on free trade simply mean that we must not be discriminatory, that we cannot pass a law saying that we will buy only British beef and stop anything else at the border. Most people accept that that is reasonable. It is not so broadly recognised that, under the rules as currently interpreted, production methods cannot be the subject of national legislation.
The classic example is the battery hen. One cannot tell by looking at an egg whether it was produced by a battery or free-range hen. Under the interpretation commonly applied by the WTO and the general agreement on tariffs and trade, we are not allowed to discriminate against battery hens or battery hen production, because we are allowed to consider only the end product.
The problem is that the overwhelming majority of ethical concerns—social, environmental, third world and animal welfare—relate to the means of production. I do not know anybody who wants to ban eggs, but I know many people who are concerned about eggs produced by intensively reared hens. I should like the Minister to accept that, in the interests of the long-term development of free trade, there is a need to seek a non-discriminatory way of addressing the problem of the means of production.
There are precedents for this. As the hon. Member for Dartford said, when the general agreement on tariffs and trade was set up after the war, prison labour was specifically excluded from the areas in which discrimination was not allowed. It is possible to say that we will not take goods produced by prison labour. That was a specific exemption created during the post-war period, under the shadow of Nazi work camps, and it stands in isolation. As I understand it, it is thought not to be possible to introduce discrimination against products from bonded labour or child labour. There is a clear inconsistency, which I hope will give the Minister some leverage to enable him to make progress.
I should like to ask some specific questions of the Minister. I shall be brief, because I know that other hon. Members want to speak, and I hope that we can leave the Minister time to address the issues.
First, what does the Minister see as the main obstacles to progress? If he accepts that there is a problem, how does he envisage tackling them? Secondly, the European Union has said for some time, through the Commission, that it has been considering raising these issues at a high-level meeting before the next WTO conference. Will Britain take the initiative on the Council of Ministers to instruct the Commission to include these topics in its negotiating package and to prepare proposals to address the problem? In that way, Britain and Europe could be seen to be taking a lead.
Thirdly, will Britain support proposals along the lines urged by Compassion in World Farming and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which have been active in these matters, to reinforce article XX of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, allowing nation states to take account of these matters? That was mentioned by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker). I also agree that article III needs attention.
Will Britain promote discussion of a framework for mandatory labelling schemes for consumer information? Even those who feel reluctant to accept a relaxation in the rules to allow for welfare considerations accept that there is a reasonable case for consumers to know what the hell is going on, and how a product is produced. We need to be able to do that without being subject to international legal challenge. We should accept that the WTO would be able to examine a labelling scheme to ensure that it is not deliberately discriminatory, so that labels do not say, "British" or "Horrible foreign goods". We need to have the possibility of mandatory systems that will provide consumers with the choice they need.
With the failure of the multilateral agreement on investment in the present round, there is now a vacuum in fair trade and fair investment rules. The debate on the multilateral agreement on investment and the current WTO debate show the need for a multi-pronged approach, balancing increasing liberalisation with adherence to agreed minimum standards.
To take a slightly far-fetched parallel, it is a little like the Northern Ireland talks. It is difficult to make progress in one area unless the participants are confident that there will be a balance of progress in another area. The argument that we should agree to total liberalisation, and that the rest can be delegated to some animal welfare organisation, is not accepted by the groups involved, because they suspect, probably correctly, that they will be blocked in the later discussions.
The time is right for the Government to take a lead internationally, and to perform a real service for the world trading community by looking for a framework in which liberalised trade can be supplemented by ethical standards. I believe that most people would be extremely pleased if the Minister and his colleagues would take the initiative. We would all be proud of our country if we could bring about something along those lines to help solve this problem, which ultimately concerns so many people.

Mr. Mike Hancock: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) for selecting this topic, and for his coherent and comprehensive introduction to an important debate. He touched on a number of issues, which I hope that the Minister will address in some detail when he replies. In one of those issues—the current case being fought by the Canadian Government against the French on white asbestos—I hope that the Government will do all they can to support our French colleagues in resisting what Canada has done.
I can draw on a recent example in the Council of Europe. The Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), produced a report which would outlaw the use and manufacture of asbestos throughout the Council of Europe area. There was a pathetic display by the Canadian Government, who propped up the Russians. The Canadian Government tabled amendments on which the Russians had not been briefed, and they got the Russians to express points of view which contradicted their own standpoint on many of these issues.
The Canadians and the Russians did all they could to frustrate what was universally accepted in the room, except by those two nations, as something that would benefit the people of Europe. As has been said, asbestos

has killed people by the thousand in our country every year, and many of us felt that its continued use was a breach of human rights. It is as much a death sentence as any execution carried out in the Ukraine or elsewhere.
We must be vigilant, and support nations who are prepared to tackle this issue. On this occasion, the Government should do all they can to support the French. More importantly, I hope that the British Government will show initiative in taking on board the resolution of the Council of Europe pretty damn quickly, and bringing it into law in this country.
The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) spoke for the overwhelming majority of hon. Members when he mentioned his frustration at not being able to pursue the hunting Bill. Since we have been back from the recess, we have had two non-working Fridays—presumably there will be another next week—and the House has gone home early three times. There would have been enough time to see that very good Bill go through all its stages. We would probably have had sufficient time to frustrate the frustraters.
That Bill could have become law if the Government had had the resolve that they suggested when they were in opposition. I hope that the Bill will come back. I should like to see it in the next Queen's Speech, but, if the whispers that it may appear in the one after next are correct, I hope that that is a commitment that the Government will not shirk, and that we will see the Bill come to fruition in the lifetime of this Parliament.
For the past 30 years, I have campaigned in my city for the banning of the export of live animals. It came to a head in the late 1970s, when we opened our own ferry port. Nobody who has travelled by car on a ferry containing animals in transit can fail to be moved and emotionally embarrassed by the fact that human beings can allow animals to be transported in such a way. I have been on ships in force eight or nine gales, during which the ferry companies have been embarrassed to allow people back to the car decks because of the noise of the animals. That continues.
Hon. Members have talked about the four-tier lorries transporting sheep across Europe. I witnessed an accident on the border between Romania and Hungary at the end of the winter. A lorry containing sheep had overturned, and 30 or 50 dead sheep were sprawled across the road; blood was pouring into the sand. That was the horrific consequence of a nasty accident. There were at least twice as many animals on the lorry as the law would have permitted in this country.
The ironic thing is that those sheep had originated in the United Kingdom, and had been moved on to the lorry that crashed on the Romanian border. Their onward transhipment was through Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and then into the middle east. Animals reared in the UK and subject to the law of this country are being taken 2,500 miles across Europe and down into the middle east, and we do nothing about it. Most reasonable people would be horrified to know that such things go on.
In March, I tabled a written question
To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will raise the issue of the effect of the GATT on EU animal welfare directives during the World Trade Organisation Ministerial Conference in May".


The answer was:
The European Communities' final position … is still under discussion."—[Official Report, 24 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 110.]
We held the presidency at that time. Why on earth did we not take that initiative on?
In July, I tabled a written question to ask the Minister of Agriculture what plans he had to raise the export of cattle from the European Union to middle eastern countries. The answer was:
The Government have no plans to seek an end to the payment of export refunds on live cattle."—[Official Report, 24 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 707.]
It was implied that we should wait for the value of dead meat exports to catch up.
What a pathetic response from a nation that is supposed to care, and a Government who, in opposition, said that they would tackle these issues. It is no good saying that we cannot do it. I am grateful that we have signed up to the convention on international trade in endangered species. It is right that we are able to ban trade in endangered species, but surely we have a right and a duty to ban the cruel and inhumane transport and exploitation of animals that have been raised here. We cannot hide behind others any longer: we have to tackle this issue.
I am bitterly disappointed that, when we held the presidency of the European Union, we did not do more. Organisations such as Animal Defenders, the National Anti-Vivisection Society and Compassion in World Farming have campaigned for decades to make the public understand the cruelty that goes on. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) talked about just some of the examples, including cosmetic testing and the blinding of animals to make sure that humans do not suffer. Most reasonable people are horrified when such practices are exposed, and rightly turn away from those products when they know.
Many people—the Body Shop is a classic example—have made a virtue of establishing their credibility within the marketplace by showing that it is possible to make a profit without inflicting cruelty. It can and should work. We have to make sure that such issues are not ignored in the House.
Too many of the people we represent believe that we have a direct responsibility to do something about animal welfare. I never cease to be amazed at how many times the issues are raised in the House and how little happens. In my previous existence as a Member of Parliament, the Conservatives were in power. What a pathetic example they gave of a party that is supposed to care. Their caring started and ended with the profit motive. They did nothing to establish proper care and responsibility for animal welfare. At the end of this Parliament, I do not want Labour Members who have loyally supported the Government to feel that they have been let down. I hope that the Labour Government have enough resolve and backbone to tackle animal welfare issues.
With so much human talent around, we do not need to exploit animals for our entertainment. Circuses that include animals should become a thing of the past—a thing that people talk about, but are delighted to know no longer exist. The exportation of animals and cruelty in the rearing of animals should be high on the Government's agenda. As many hon. Members have said, it is high on the agenda of many of the people we represent.
I hope that today the message will go out that once again, the House of Commons has spoken on behalf of the overwhelming majority of British people, who believe that it is the right time for the Government to do the right thing, to get behind the public, and fight on animal welfare issues. If that means fighting through the courts of the world, we should do so.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: I shall make a short speech, because it is important that other hon. Members make some of their points, and that the Minister has time to respond.
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on obtaining this important debate. I wish to highlight one or two things, but first I want to set the debate in context. The issues on which we all receive most letters in our postbags are animal welfare and the social and environmental concerns that affect world trade.
When I visit schools or meet children elsewhere, they say things like, "Why is it that we continue to export animals in this way? Why is it that we continue to rape the rain forests? Why do we continue to use child labour to produce footballs or carpets?" When they say that sort of thing, it challenges me as a Member of Parliament or, indeed, as an adult. It challenged me when I was a teacher. I say, "You have to understand that it is a complicated situation. It is difficult to deal with the problem. There are all sorts of laws and difficulties in understanding how trade organisations work. There is something called GATT, and something called the World Trade Organisation." They reply, "But it's cruel. It's not right."
Such challenges from children to Parliament put the debate in context, and show that we really need to be judged by our actions. I sometimes feel that I am making excuses and explaining away something that it is difficult to explain away. I know that the Government are desperate to do something. Ministers do not believe in cruelty. They want to do something about it.
The purpose of today's debate is to generate even more passion, more desire and more determination in the Government to take on people who use—let us be frank—the cloak of free trade and the liberalisation of trade to continue practices that we regard as barbaric. They do not do so because they want to improve the lot of the people they pretend to represent. They do not do so to increase the prosperity of ordinary people. They do it to protect the profit of individuals in those areas, and they want to continue the exploitation.
None of us is opposed to trade. We all know that trade means prosperity. We do not want to pull up the ladder and say, "We are prosperous and well off, thank you very much. We don't want you to develop your industries." It is in that context that we need to discuss the issue.
In the approaching WTO negotiations, it is important that we understand and accept the key argument that the way in which something is produced or made is an important consideration for this country. We want the right to determine whether products are allowed into this country. That requires fundamental changes to our trading arrangements.
Free trade is one thing; the liberalisation of trade is another; but the exploitation of children, cruelty to animals and the rape of rain forests are something else


entirely. We have to ask ourselves some serious questions if we, as part of the civilised world and as a civilising influence on the world, are unable to sit down at the table and help to produce an agreement that protects the environment, supports decent labour standards for people in other countries and improves animal welfare standards, while simultaneously promoting prosperity and enhancing worldwide trade arrangements.
When the children I meet ask me what the Government—not the Labour Government, or the Conservative Government, but our Government, and our Parliament—are doing to address those serious issues and to ensure that we no longer have to witness some of the scenes described by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South, I want to be able to tell them that we are trying to achieve something better.

12 noon

Mr. Gwyn Prosser: I shall concentrate specifically on live animal exports. In a previous life, I spent almost 30 years in the Merchant Navy, sailing on ships to the far east and crossing the channel. I have seen some of the suffering close up; I have felt it and smelt it and I know what it is all about.
The general agreement on tariffs and trade acts against our ability to ban live animal exports. Every year, about 500,000 animals are exported from the European Union to the middle east. We know about their suffering during the voyage and during their discharge at the end of the journey, in high temperatures and uncontrolled conditions. We know some of their suffering during the act of slaughter. It is beyond belief that the EU does not have the power to stop that evil trade.
That trade takes place much closer to home: every week, many thousands of live animals are exported through my constituency of Dover. I pay tribute to the local animal welfare organisations—especially Kent Against Live Animal Exports, of which I am a member—which have picketed, day and night and in all weather, over the past two years to try to bring an end to the evil trade. Dover harbour board wants to stop the trade and has tried to do so; the mainstream—one might call them "legitimate"—ferry companies want to stop it; yet still the trade continues.
The ordinary people who turn out, day and night, many without a political thought in their head other than the welfare of animals, cannot understand why our Government are unable to ban the trade. They cannot understand why the EU is unable to ban the trade from Europe to the middle east. They cannot understand why the free trade regulations completely ignore any principles of ethics or morality in their application.
I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on having covered the subject in depth and on managing to mention the third way twice—now it has been mentioned for a third time. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take to the negotiations the message that there is an urgent need to inject morality, ethics and fairness into all future negotiations.

Mr. Alan Simpson: I speak as no supporter of free trade, and I take some comfort from the fact that the WTO does not believe in free trade either. The latest American research shows that at least 200

international cartels of major corporations are involved in global price fixing, but the WTO has absolutely nothing to say about that. The difference between my position and that of the WTO is that I believe that the next century will demand that we address two issues: one is the agenda for sustainable economics; the other is the need to establish responsible trade and production, rather than have a deregulated world economy that causes greater climate change and plunges us into climatic crisis.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take account of four principles in the negotiations on the revision of WTO rules in which the UK is to be involved. First, we have to make a commitment to honour the achievements of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in the Kyoto negotiations. We must ensure that environmental responsibility and sustainability take precedence over all forms of international treaty that would undermine our ability, both locally and globally, to meet environmental protection targets.
Secondly, after the international triumph of organisations that scuppered the multilateral agreement on investment, which was secretly negotiated within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the UK must not entertain the notion of that being introduced into the WTO by the back door.
Thirdly, we must enter the negotiations with the aim of questioning one of the key forms of protectionism written into WTO rules, which relates to intellectual property rights. The objections of countries in the developing world to the use of biotechnology patents to rape and pillage their genetic inheritance must be heeded. In India, half of the essential herbs that form the basis of ayurvedic medicine have been the subject of patent applications from European and US companies. We must restore the rights of self-development and sustainable development to the third world.
Fourthly, we must extend the rights of consumers to demand protection from the introduction of genetically modified crops, for which there is no public demand and which are the subject of large-scale environmental, health and social concerns that have yet to be adequately answered.
I ask that the UK's negotiating stance be based on the following commitments. Sustainability should take precedence over market deregulation. The precautionary principle, long established as the cornerstone of society's right to protection from adverse environmental and health consequences of new inventions, should take precedence over environmental exploitation. Democratic accountability should take precedence over the price mechanism. Finally, human, environmental and animal health should take precedence over the demands of corporate dividends and stakeholder demands. If we adopt such a stance, we shall be better able internationally to adhere to the amazing achievements of the Deputy Prime Minister in Kyoto, and to turn GATT into something with which the world can live, rather than something by which it will be destroyed.

Mr. David Chaytor: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on securing the debate. He has done the House a service in drawing attention to the increasing conflict between the globalised free market and the need for environmental


protection. I am sure that the debate will continue over the coming years and will be the main subject of political debate in the next century.
The timing of today's debate is significant, given that yesterday my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister published a document outlining the way in which the Government will deliver their Kyoto commitments; and that last week the French Government decided to withdraw their support from the multilateral agreement on investment. It is worth dwelling on those two points because, in two weeks' time, the Government will be pursuing the Kyoto agenda at the Buenos Aires conference. Securing an agreement between the demands of the United States, China and the developing world on the setting of emissions limits, while keeping the wheels of free trade turning, will not only require great political skill, but will again heighten the tension between free trade and environmental protection.
On the subject of the MAI, I draw the attention of the House to early-day motion 1700, which appears on today's Order Paper. I urge hon. Members to read it and sign it if they feel able to do so. Although the MAI was only a small part of the much wider GATT agenda, it was significant, reflecting the changing climate in thinking on globalisation. Increasingly, the thinking now—not only in the United Kingdom but abroad—is that we can no longer accept the orthodoxy that we have been asked to accept for the past 50 years. Environmental concerns are increasingly at the heart of worldwide economic debates.
I want to ensure that the Minister has ample time to reply to the debate, so I shall conclude. However, I endorse the specific questions asked by my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) and for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), which I hope that the Minister will be able to answer in detail.
Today, we have discussed reform of the World Trade Organisation and its limitations in dealing with environmental matters. Perhaps a much bigger issue is the nature of the international institutions that have developed in recent years, and whether those organisations are capable of dealing with the new economic situation that we now face. I wonder whether the WTO, for example, can ever be reformed to deal fully with the sustainable development agenda, or whether—given that we have not only a World Health Organisation but a World Trade Organisation—we now need a world environment organisation.

Mr. Christopher Chope: I, too, welcome this debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on the way in which he introduced it. I do not know whether he admitted to this, but I suspect that the debate was much inspired by a stimulating report by the RSPCA entitled "Conflict or Concord? Animal welfare and the World Trade Organisation", to which I shall refer later.
We have had a wide-ranging debate, which included references to circuses and hunting. I shall concentrate my remarks on the main subject of the debate—world trade—and welcome the general support for free trade that has been apparent in hon. Members' speeches.
I should like to concentrate on one specific example, so that we might try to draw some lessons from it. I make no apology for referring, again, to the issue of the plight of the British pig industry.
Pigmeat is the United Kingdom's most popular meat. Last year, consumers spent an estimated £5.9 billion on pigmeat—pork, bacon, ham and other pigmeat products—which represented almost 40 per cent. of all spending on meat and meat products. The previous, Conservative Government, with all-party support and support from consumers, introduced regulations that have given our pig industry the highest welfare standards in Europe and probably in the world. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) was not prepared to give credit to the Conservative Government for the progress that they made on that matter.
This morning, some hon. Members had the privilege of attending the pig industry's "Big Pig Breakfast". I was delighted that that gathering was attended by the Agriculture Minister, as a demonstration of his solidarity with farmers in their concerns. At the breakfast, a Scottish pig farmer—it is relevant that I should refer to him, as the Minister who will reply to this debate is a Scot through and through—made the important point that he is losing £23 pounds per pig. Those losses include about £4 per pig in additional welfare costs that he, unlike his competitors, must pay; £3 per pig to dispose of the meat and bonemeal that he is not allowed to feed back into his pigs, although farmers on the continent can do so; and £7 per pig because of the high value of the pound.
There is a grave danger that, from 1 January 1999, when the new welfare regulations on stalls and tethers are fully implemented, the number of pigs reared under those improved conditions will fall. Pigs reared abroad to lower standards and at lower cost will be substituted for the premium British product, resulting in reduced market share for our own producers. All those who have campaigned, quite legitimately, for higher welfare standards in pig production will find, ironically, that fewer pigs are produced to those standards because of our unilaterally introducing the regulations. That is not what the House intended or what British consumers or farmers wanted. I ask the Minister what the Government will do about it.
We should be able to differentiate our product and make consumers aware of, for example, the fact that only at 10 per cent. of Danish pig units are said to be free of stalls and tethers, and that as little as 2 per cent. of Dutch units are said to be free of stalls and tethers. If consumers are concerned about pigs produced in unpleasant and cruel conditions, they should not be buying Danish or Dutch pork products.
The Opposition believe that there should be greater scope for informed consumer choice. However, as the regulations are very confusing, how can consumers receive the correct information? Although British pork is reared under the highest standards in the world, how can we know that British pork is really British produced? The pork from a pig that is produced and slaughtered on the continent and brought to the United Kingdom to be used in pork pies or sausages can be sold as British pork. Consumers may very well be under the illusion that animals from which that "British" pork came were reared according to the high welfare standards that we require of our own pig producers.
What will we do about that serious problem, which has been exacerbated by some European Union regulations? As so often in our debates, we learn that the EU stands between legislators and consumers. The Opposition wish to legislate to enable consumers to make an effective choice, but discover that regulations on protecting food names, which were introduced in 1993, seem effectively to be designed to undermine the status of nation states within Europe and to prevent products being labelled as, for example, "British pork". One cannot label a product as "British pork" and therefore imply that it has been produced to higher welfare standards.
The RSPCA makes in its document some interesting points on the importance of labelling and letting consumers decide. I hope that the RSPCA, which is itself concerned about animal welfare, will help to promote British pork, and that, from the beginning of next year, it will say that buying and eating British pork will be promoting pork that has been produced to standards that are much higher than those of our European counterparts. If we let consumers have the information, I am sure that they will make the right decision. I hope that the RSPCA will join in the campaign to promote British pork.
There is much concern also about the genetic modification of food, which the hon. Member for Dartford mentioned in passing. I recently saw a guide for consumers, entitled "Foodsense: genetic modification and food", produced by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. On page 13, it states:
the Government is determined to ensure that all foods which may contain genetically modified material are clearly labelled. These would include foods which contain genetically modified products used as food ingredients such as GM soya, maize and tomato paste.
That is all very well. However, on page 14, it states:
How will genetically modified food be labelled?
Under the EC Novel Foods Regulation a genetically modified food will be labelled if it is judged, on the basis of a scientific assessment, not to be equivalent to an existing food. Foods will also require labelling if there are any ethical concerns or if it contains a genetically modified organism, even if it is equivalent to an existing food.
That statement is not the same as saying that the consumer will be given the power to make an informed choice, because the information that foods are subject to genetic modification will be given only in certain circumstances.
The document continues:
The Government"—
rightly—
believes that all foods should be labelled so that consumers are made aware when they contain any genetically modified material. The UK will be pressing for this when foods are approved under the regulation.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us today how he will secure that outcome for the British consumer.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Brian Wilson): I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) for securing this debate and also to all the hon. Members who have participated and who have made constructive contributions. I include among them the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), although I could not help feeling that the "Big Pig Breakfast" came as a rather timely research source for his speech.

I undertake to get for him the information that he wants about the labelling of British pork, and labelling is a subject to which I shall return later.
To be frank, I am grateful for the debate not least because I am new to my current responsibilities. I have never been one to pretend that there is a seamless transition of knowledge and wisdom that accompanies Ministers or, indeed, Opposition spokesmen from one job to another. I have been more than interested to hear the well-informed comments of hon. Members from all parties, who clearly bring to the debate long and distinguished backgrounds of interest and research in the subject.
Perhaps more than in other debates, everyone who has spoken today shares the same objectives. In an ideal world, we should like everything that we imported and exported to be safe and humanely produced in an environmentally responsible manner by people who have been paid a fair rate for the job. I am sure that we could all unite around that wish. It certainly contains a very laudable set of aspirations. The problem begins of course with the fact that every word in the mission statement—to use a terrible phrase—that I have just set out is open to endless discussion about definitions. That is what makes the subject genuinely complex.
The calls for action may be perfectly reasonable on the surface. Indeed, from the perspective of a sophisticated, developed economy, they might seem like modest environmental prerequisites for trade; but exactly the same call for action, viewed from the perspective of a developing country, might well appear as no more or less than crafty rich-world protectionism.
It is not necessary to be a free trade ideologue—to paraphrase my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford—to recognise the very real pitfalls that may quickly appear if we introduce sanctions against products of which we do not like the look or the smell. As my hon. Friend and others recognised, the argument falls overwhelmingly in favour of liberal trade policies. In principle, no hon. Member supports the opposite, as protectionism inhibits liberal trade. I think that I can include among those hon. Members my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson). He fairly points out that cartels exist, but I do not think that he adduces that fact as a reason for believing that cartels should exist. It is a perfectly reasonable argument for pointing out that rhetoric does not always match reality. I do not think that my hon. Friend would dissent from the view that, if rules are fairly applied and set, a liberal trade world is a much better proposition than a restrictive one.
As many hon. Members have said, the debate is not about absolute principle but is a matter of balance. Again, everyone agrees that trade is not the ideal or the primary instrument through which social or environmental objectives, however desirable, should be pursued. That takes us back to the question of balance and the identification of spheres in which it is appropriate to limit trade, as that is the only apparent way of achieving the desired objectives. I assure the House that it is a highly legitimate area of debate, which I have a genuine interest in exploring.
It is in all our interests to get the answers right from a United Kingdom perspective so that we have a trade policy that is both consistent with the principles that we pursue and that is sensitive to the concerns that have been


expressed today. I in no way underestimate the difficulty of getting that balance right. In the rhetorical flourish at the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) urged us to have enough backbone to tackle those issues. That is fine, but the first example that he adduced of where we—I presume that he meant me—should have backbone involved performing animals in circuses. My responsibilities are wide, but I am not sure that the matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred is one for the World Trade Organisation.
There are some topics for which I want to put down markers of agreement. For example, the call for greater openness and transparency in the WTO is one with which I readily agree. There has been growing recognition of the need for greater dialogue with the general public and non-governmental organisations about the principles that underlie trade liberalisation and the multilateral trading system operated by the WTO. It has to be explained why they are advantageous for developed countries as well as less developed countries and for jobs, growth and prosperity. All dialogue on such matters should be conducted openly.
In that context, we can welcome measures taken by the WTO to be more open. They include the de-restriction of documents, the use of the internet and so on. They show a welcome desire on the part of the WTO to be more open, but I do not believe that the process has gone far enough. We can play a leading role in urging greater transparency within the WTO.
One point on which I can perhaps bring some optimism among hon. Members who have spoken today is the shrimp-turtle case. The appellate body has come out not against the measure, but only against the way in which the United States chooses to pursue it. I shall not, as one hon. Member requested, give the Government's definitive position on that issue today. Because of its importance, it may become the definitive trade and environmental case study in terms of WTO jurisprudence. We have to consider it carefully and discuss it circumspectly until a position emerges. It is an example of a case being pursued by a wide range of opinion and countries, and the WTO

has not categorically come out against the action taken. We have to consider the implication of the appellant body's ruling.
It is for the same reason that I cannot say too much about the Canadian asbestos case, although I wholly agree that it is interesting and highly relevant to the way in which the WTO discharges its functions. It is, of course, subject to appeal by the Canadians. Again, it will have a marked impact on perceptions of how the WTO approaches such matters.
Another matter on which we can find agreement and on which I can offer something to hon. Members who have spoken today is the UK's role in taking forward those issues within the European Union and the WTO. We are actively encouraging a high-level meeting on trade and the environment. The EU's proposal to that effect is now being considered by our partners in the WTO. In order to make progress, we obviously have to agree an agenda that will attract wide support and involvement.

Mr. Baker: We are running out of time. The Minister was asked some specific questions—I counted about 10— which he will not have time to answer. He was open about being on a steep learning curve, so will he undertake to write to hon. Members with the answers that they seek?

Mr. Wilson: I have no difficulty in giving the hon. Gentleman that absolute assurance. It is much more useful to write to hon. Members than to gabble through the replies in front of me. I have every intention of trying to address the concerns.
I believe that broad philosophical agreement exists on the problem. The objectives are not in doubt. For instance, there is consensus that the best way to tackle labour standard issues is through the International Labour Organisation. If we tried through the World Trade Organisation to create a framework of labour rules for developing countries, the subject would hardly get on to the agenda, far less have a prospect of early success. If we are to make progress, it is important to be much more specific in defining those aspects that are within the WTO's remit—that is, within trade. In the case of issues that are not, we should consider whether another avenue exists.
This interesting debate will continue. I assure hon. Members that I shall take a close interest in the matter.

Black Watch

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise this important national and constituency issue on the Floor of the House. With the Minister's agreement, I shall restrict my comments to allow my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) to speak.
The Black Watch Territorial Army Battalion, which has its headquarters in Perth and which recruits widely throughout Perthshire, Angus and Fife, is the volunteer arm of one of the most distinguished regiments in our armed forces. I understand that it was raised in 1746, so it is also one of the oldest. The House may recall that the Black Watch regulars were the regiment that oversaw the lowering of the union jack over Hong Kong last year. It is my hope, of course, that the regiment and its full complement of volunteers will be present at the raising of the saltire at the independence ceremonies for Scotland in a few years' time.
Hon. Members will be aware of the broad thrust of the proposals for the Territorial Army throughout the United Kingdom and in Scotland—a cut of some 30 per cent. across the UK, but, I am informed, a fall of some 47 per cent. in the highlands. However, we have been left in the dark about the impact on individual TA battalions and companies.
Before the recess, the Government assured the House that consultation on future TA deployment would take place over the summer, and that an announcement would be made in the autumn. That announcement, as I understand it, has been delayed. My information is that we are unlikely to hear the fate of our individual TA units until December. That is an appalling way to treat the volunteers. Will the Minister please explain the reasons for the delay? One conclusion is that it is intended to delay the news until just before Christmas, in the hope that the bad news will be swamped by the seasonal preparations.
If the Minister departs from his prepared response in only one area today, I hope that he will do so to answer the following questions. Has he personally seen the Army's recommendations on the TA? Does his Department have a copy of those recommendations? If the answer to either of those questions is yes, when did he or his Department receive the recommendations? What is the reason for any delay in the final announcement? Can he today give us a date for the publication of the final details of the TA cuts? Over the past few days, I have spoken to many members of the Territorial Army at every level. They, too, have asked those questions, and it is insulting to them that the Government are not coming clean with the proposals right now.
What is most demeaning, and what has caused almost 300 volunteers in the highlands to leave the TA over the summer, is the fact that the likely outcome of the so-called review seems clear. Those men know that their battalions are facing large cuts and loss of identity, so there is little incentive for them to remain in them.
It appears that, in my area, the Black Watch will be merged with the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders TA and the Highlanders TA, with the Black Watch reduced to one company and the others possibly escaping with two

each. The Black Watch cap badges will remain, the red hackles may still be there, but, when that cap badge covers a company of as few as 100 men, that can be seen as little more than a sop.
In my area, it is hoped that Perth itself will retain the battalion headquarters, but information suggests that it is likely that the Black Watch TA presence will go from Forfar and Kirkcaldy—two of the most modern TA centres in the country. That at Forfar opened as recently as this year, at a cost of £800,000, and that at Kirkcaldy was renovated three years ago, at a cost of more than £2 million. If Kirkcaldy goes, it will be an end to the infantry presence in Fife. I do not consider that a saving; it seems more like a scandalous waste.
Overall, the Black Watch TA is bracing itself for a cut of some 69 per cent. in its complement—a loss of some 150 men. In 1995, the Black Watch alone of the highland regiments had its complement cut. Perhaps the Minister will explain why it seems to have been singled out for such draconian measures.
The current cuts are reflected elsewhere in Scotland and the UK. Obviously, I cannot stray too far from the subject of the debate, but hon. Members will appreciate that my comments on the Black Watch are intended as an illustration of a wider problem. This is not only a plea for the Government to change their mind on the Black Watch, but for them to rethink the whole review of the TA and to ensure that Scotland maintains a minimum complement of 7,000 volunteers.
The Minister is likely to argue that times have changed, and that volunteers do not play the role that they used to in our national defence. He may wax lyrical about the potency of Trident, rapid deployment forces and large aircraft carriers in allowing the UK to project its supposed might worldwide, but in my view such arguments are akin to a mid-life crisis, bringing to mind the man who craves the roar of a Ferrari when he needs a good four-wheel drive vehicle. This analysis does not take into account the real impact and importance of the Black Watch and the other TA battalions.
The Minister must consider two points. First, it is clear from the strategic defence review that the role of the armed forces has switched more heavily toward rapid deployment overseas and away from defence of the home territory. That is a strategic judgment, but in so reconfiguring the regulars he has left a role for the volunteers—home defence—which should mean keeping the TA units at current strength instead of slashing them. The Black Watch and the other battalions are the framework around which a home defence force can be raised. The Government's proposals threaten to turn that framework into a skeleton. That is not only my view, but that of senior members of the TA, to whom I have spoken in recent days and weeks.
Secondly, the Ministry of Defence recognises that the Territorial Army will play an increasing role, alongside the regulars, in some overseas deployments. I believe that about 10 per cent. of current UK forces in Bosnia are volunteers, providing additional skills to complement the regulars. Obviously, if the TA is cut, the burden of those duties will fall on a smaller number of increasingly demoralised volunteers. Is the Minister confident that the cream of the TA battalions will remain in service when their battalion identities are destroyed, and when recruitment areas are being cut? In the Black Watch area,


the cuts will effectively mean freezing out Fife and Angus. Is the Minister confident that employers will be happy to see their staff called away increasingly often and bearing the additional burdens imposed by the cuts? Is he confident that he can find 1,500 volunteers for Bosnia from a pool of 40,000 men, when I am told that it is difficult enough to do so from a pool of 60,000?
The Territorial Army is, by its very name, a territorial body. Has the Minister forgotten that Scotland covers more than a quarter of the UK land mass? Surely there is an unanswerable case for that land mass, and the highlands in particular, to retain territorial units. There is no reason why the Black Watch should suffer a cut of twice the UK average. There must be a rethink on the deployment of volunteer engineers in Scotland. Although that matter is not directly related to the Black Watch, I should say that my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has been pressing for the retention of the two units in her constituency. Recent floods across the country should serve as reminder enough of the role that such units can play in such community and natural disasters. When the River Tay flooded in Perth in the early 1990s, the local infantry TA made a major contribution.
Finally, I want the Minister to consider the impact of the proposed cuts on my area and on communities throughout the country. It has been estimated that the economic loss throughout the UK from the slashing of 20,000 volunteers will be some £50 million. In Perthshire, Angus and Fife, the cuts could result in as much as £400,000 being removed from the local economies. They will result in fewer opportunities for young people in the towns most likely to lose their TA centres. They will impact on the recruitment of Army cadets. The two battalions of cadets in the Black Watch area will undoubtedly be affected by a loss of more than 60 per cent. in the manpower of their main source of military support. Given that much Regular Army recruitment comes from those serving in the TA, we may find an even bigger recruitment problem a few years down the line.
The Territorial Army takes up a mere 2 per cent. of the UK defence budget. That 2 per cent. provides a skills base for the regular forces, a pool of troops for overseas deployment, a link with local communities and a framework for home defence. That is money well spent, when other parts of the defence budget are being wasted on resources such as the unusable Trident nuclear system.
My plea to the Minister is to take heed of his short-sighted TA cuts in the Black Watch and the other volunteer battalions and invest in the backbone of our national defence, not in the grandiose delusions of nuclear power.

Mr. John Swinney: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) on securing this debate and thank her for allowing me to make a brief contribution on my constituency interest.
I am concerned about the rumoured cuts in the strength of the Black Watch and the likelihood that the exercise will result in a 69 per cent. cut in numbers. My constituency interest relates to securing the future of the Strathmore TA centre at Forfar, where the anti-tank

platoon of the third volunteer battalion of the Black Watch is based. The new centre, in Castle street, Forfar, was opened by the Earl of Airlie, the Lord Lieutenant of Angus, in April 1998, following an investment of nearly £800,000 in refurbishment. The premises have several attributes unique to the presence of an anti-tank platoon, notably the weapons store. Closing that centre would be short sighted, resulting in the loss of the investment made in those unique facilities.
When I visited the centre last Friday, I heard some cautious optimism about its future, but that contradicts the reports leaked earlier in the year suggesting that it was to be closed. Will the Minister settle that speculation today?
However, that is not the end of my concerns. I am acutely worried about the impact in my constituency, but there is also grave unease in the wider area of Fife and Tayside about the implications of the proposed cuts and how they might affect centres in Kirkcaldy, Dundee and Perth. Existing personnel have given great commitment to the Territorial Army. As a result of the proposals, they will simply be told that their commitment has been in vain. We do not want to lose that commitment and those resources.
My hon. Friend the Member for Perth referred to the important role of the Territorial Army in contributing to the local economy. I want to stress that strongly. There are implications for remuneration in the local economy and purchasing power in the Angus area.
The Territorial Army has an important role in recruitment at local level for the Regular Army. The traditional recruiting areas of the Black Watch in Angus, Dundee, Fife and Perthshire are closely associated with the regiment. There is a danger of the Government's proposals destroying that vital local link. I hope that the Minister will reassure us today about the regiment and my constituency interests.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) on securing a debate on the potential implications of reductions in the Territorial Army on the third battalion of the Black Watch, which has its headquarters in her constituency. She alluded to the creation of an independent Scotland, but did not say how she would pay for the TA while setting up a separate Army, Navy and Air Force for Scotland. Her sneering references to a mid-life crisis made clear her contempt for our armed services. However, despite her tone, she made some arguments that should be dealt with.
The debate is about the potential implications—I say potential only because no decisions have been taken. Indeed, no proposals have yet been put to Ministers. The Government fully appreciate that this is a period of uncertainty for those in the TA in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK. We are keen to make an announcement as soon as possible. The hon. Lady asked me to depart from my prepared response, which says that she would be the first to criticise us if we did not consult carefully all those concerned before reaching our decision. That is what we are doing and why we do not have a final response. The issues have not been decided before consultations with the Territorial Army have been completed. If we came with a prepared response while the consultation was still under way, the instant accusation in the Chamber would be that the consultations were a meaningless smokescreen.
We deplore the way in which internal consultation documents were leaked and then presented as Government proposals. As my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces told the House last week—and will no doubt say again in this afternoon's debate on the Army—the Government will return to the House with a statement when a decision has been made. We shall try to do that as soon as possible, after giving proper consideration to all the responses.
The hon. Member for Perth rightly drew attention to the long and distinguished history of the Black Watch, Scotland's senior highland regiment. The Highland Regiment of Foot was formed in 1740 and was known from the beginning as the Black Watch—derived, I understand, from the colour of the tartan and the original task of the companies in keeping watch over the highlands in the aftermath of the Jacobite rising. The regiment now contains one territorial battalion, with a headquarters at Queens barracks in Perth. The battalion has two companies, in Dundee and Kirkcaldy, with a platoon based in Forfar. The Government fully understand the important role that the Black Watch plays in the local community, which the hon. Members for Perth and for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) have articulated so forcefully.
When considering the potential implications of the reduction in size of the Territorial Army on battalions such as the Black Watch, and how best to minimise the negative impacts for any units that have to close, the Government have a responsibility to bear in mind the full implications of not making the changes. In short, as we said in the strategic defence review, we are looking to the future, not the past.
The current structure of the Territorial Army is based on cold war planning for defence in the event of a major Warsaw pact invasion of western Europe. That role is no longer realistic or credible and the TA must adapt to the new world. The structure is based on the role of territorial defence, particularly of key strategic installations, in the event of a major conflict in central Europe and the need to backfill into such a conflict. That is no longer part of the Ministry of Defence's strategic planning. We must ensure that the TA remains relevant and usable in the current strategic reality and that it is an integral part of the defence capability that the strategic defence review, following wide consultation in the services and beyond, has sought to identify. The TA can no longer have a structure based on the need to meet the threat of general war in Europe—a threat that no longer exists in the short or medium term. It is wasteful and demoralising to maintain forces for a non-existent role. That is why change is required.
We want a Territorial Army that is more fully integrated into the Regular Army and structured to meet today's security concerns. We seek a TA that is properly resourced, and provides career development and educational opportunities for those who wish to volunteer and to serve. We seek a Territorial Army that is trained to operate key battle-winning equipment, such as Challenger, AS90, the multiple-launch rocket system and Rapier, and which offers skills that can be of benefit in civilian employment both to the individual and their employers.
As part of the approach, we shall look to make greater use of the TA for the conduct of military operations than we have in the past. As was made clear in the strategic

defence review, we need to be prepared to mobilise the TA more frequently. We did not compulsorily call it out for the Gulf war, but plan to do so for future operations of that scale. In seeking to strike the appropriate balance between the size of our regular forces and that of our reserves, however, we must take into account that, with few exceptions, we cannot expect our reserve forces to undertake operations at short notice or meet on-going day-to-day commitments. The hon. Member for Perth mentioned that greater use of the TA would not be attractive to employers. We know from discussions with employers that the greater level of training that will be provided will be attractive to them.
For the TA as a whole, therefore, the change in its character and role is important and good news. Instead of large numbers of forces planning and training to meet the implausible threat of an imminent strategic attack on the United Kingdom or our NATO allies, we see a force that will contribute to our ability to project military power abroad. The challenge is to prevent the Territorial Army becoming a symbol of the cold war, with no place in the new strategic setting.
The Government are keenly aware of the importance of maintaining the link between the Army—indeed, all the services—and the wider civilian population. That link has been fostered both nationally and locally by the presence of TA units in the community—not least by their support of local cadet forces, to which both the hon. Members for Perth and for North Tayside referred. The training that TA units offer, the values that they instil and the support that they provide in times of civilian crises are all vital functions.
In seeking to introduce such an important change, we are carefully considering all the issues—including those raised by the hon Lady and the hon. Gentleman in this debate. We hope to preserve as wide a presence as possible of the TA—as well as the other voluntary services in the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy, which I regret are sometimes forgotten in these debates—throughout the country. To assist us in reaching decisions, we have consulted widely on how the changes should be implemented. In particular, the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association, which has important local knowledge, has been fully involved.
It is tribute to the geographical coverage of the Territorial Army that there is a TA centre in the majority of constituencies. That understandably and rightly accounts for the interest that so many hon. Members take in plans for the TA and prospects for their local units, which are an important part of their communities. As well as ensuring that military requirements are met, it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that, as far as possible, the geographical spread should continue, and that all those who wish to offer their services are able to do so.
The geographical footprint of the services is one of the important criterion in evaluation of the proposals. As a result of the Secretary of State's announcement only last week, we have of course increased the visibility of the services in the community by allowing our forces to wear uniforms in their local areas. That is very important. We recognise the TA as a further important part in such visibility, and will consider it in our decisions.
If we are to be successful in implementing the change that is so important, some TA units will have to close or change role. For the reasons that I have given, we can not perpetuate the status quo, nor has there been a realistic argument that the TA should stay as it is.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: indicated dissent.

Mr. Spellar: That is so, even when individuals have argued points of detail.
The hon. Members for Perth and for North Tayside raised the question of cadets. Of particular importance, and a further criterion in our evaluation of particular sites, is the support often provided to local cadet forces by TA centres, such as the one in Perth. The cadets of all three services represent an important national youth movement. Although some will be affected by the planned changes in Territorial Army centres, we aim to minimise disruption wherever possible. Indeed, we are looking to increase the direct financial support that we offer them.
The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) indicated that he thought that there was a realistic argument for the TA to stay as it is.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: indicated dissent.

Mr. Spellar: He denies that. I am pleased to have his agreement, in the spirit of constructive opposition.
The hon. Member for Perth referred to the percentage of reserves and cadets who provide recruits to the armed forces. I understand that 25 per cent. of Regular Army recruit—officers and soldiers alike—have Army cadet experience. About 8 per cent. have TA experience.
As my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will make clear in the debate later today, recruitment to the Army has much improved under this Government.

We do not believe that our proposals for the TA will affect that to any significant degree. We recognise that the changes envisaged will have an impact on many members of the TA, including those whose units will not be closing, as well as all those who have contact with it. We are working hard to provide a sensitive package of measures for volunteers who leave the TA, and hope to be able to announce more about that later in the year.
Several other opportunities will be made available for volunteers who are unable to continue serving with the TA. Those will include service with the Regular Army, membership of the Royal Naval Reserve, or the Royal Air Force Reserve, and posts as officers or instructors with the cadets. In the event that suitable vacancies arise, the volunteers will of course have the opportunity to rejoin the TA. There will also be provisions concerning travel allowances. We recognise the geographical problems in Scotland to which the hon. Member for Perth drew attention. The hon. Lady also referred to Trident. Given the Scottish National party's opposition to Trident, it is slightly ironic that it campaigns vigorously on where Trident submarines should be refitted. Perhaps that is a further example of the SNP's inconsistency.
The implementation of changes in the TA will be difficult, but it important that we have a modern, relevant and usable Territorial Army which is fully integrated into the Regular Army and has much to offer those who wish to volunteer and serve, but are not able to serve full time.
The hon Member for Perth has drawn attention to the potential implications for the TA unit of the Black Watch in her constituency. I assure her that those and the many other representations that we have received from hon. Members and those involved with the TA will be taken into account in the decisions that Ministers will be taking over the next few weeks on its structure and our investment in the future of a strong, relevant and usable Territorial Army.

Pay-per-view Television

Mr. Brian White: It may seem strange to introduce what may be thought of as a rather marginal debate, but I believe that its subject will grow in importance, and that we shall come back to it.
Last week, at the all-party group on cricket, Tim Lamb, chief executive of the Test and County Cricket Board, said that the awarding of the contract for broadcasting cricket to Channel 4 might be the last such negotiation between broadcasters and sports bodies.
As pay-per-view and digital television grow, there will be a complete change in the way in which not only sports coverage but other coverage is negotiated. As David Elstein, former director of programmes for Sky, said, in 10 to 15 years' time, when pay-per-view is fully developed, we shall be paying for each individual programme. I am not sure that that is the way in which we should be developing. Is that really what we want?
At the moment, the scope of pay-per-view is limited by economics—how to make it pay—and technology, but, with the convergence of technology, it will spread. It is estimated that 10 million homes will have digital television in the next 10 to 15 years. As shown by the Select Committee report on the convergence of technologies and the Government's response to it, which I welcome, the debate will be more important in future.
Companies are now looking at ways of broadcasting visual images along old-fashioned copper wire—the old telephone links—so the ways of distributing visual images will change. It is not only television that will be affected. I have heard one person say that there will soon be pay-per-listen radio. All the hottest and latest releases—not that I can remember them—will be on pay-per-listen radio, and the rest of us will have to wait a few weeks or months to hear them.
There is great uncertainty about the way in which technology in general, including pay-per-view, will develop. I shall concentrate on football today, but what I say applies to other sports and other types of television too. The Office of Fair Trading is now investigating the deal between the Football Association and Sky Television, alleging that a cartel operates, and that each club should negotiate individually. I cannot understand how a cartel can be operating when 31 clubs have appeared in the Premier League over the past six years.
If we take that idea seriously, however, and the Office of Fair Trading gets its way and clubs start negotiating individually, a series of questions will arise. What happens if clubs negotiate with different broadcasters operating different systems, with one on pay-per-view, one on digital and another on terrestrial television? When will sport be televised, and will pay-per-view get the premier slots? If we take that to its logical conclusion—

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Does my hon. Friend share my opinion that pay-per-view is just one aspect of the growing concern among football supporters about the commercial exploitation of their game? Does he agree that pay-per-view is one element of the increasing commercialisation of sport, and of football in particular, that the football task force must address?

Mr. White: I certainly agree that the football task force should address that question. It is interesting that, in Italy,

where the four top clubs have renegotiated their contracts to obtain a higher percentage of the revenue, that has led to a widening of the gap between those clubs and others. I fear that, were that arrangement to be replicated in England, we would see the same phenomenon. Lower division clubs are already struggling, and that would exacerbate the situation.
I shall not dwell upon the proposed BSkyB takeover of Manchester United, but it raises many questions about pay-per-view. The Sky contract ends in 2001, and I suspect that much of the background to the Sky takeover is connected with the fact that it wants a place at the negotiating table then. It is conceivable that Sky would have been outside the negotiations on multimedia promotions and suggestions for a European super-league, but the purchase of Manchester United will give it a place at the table.
Pay-per-view for the top clubs in Europe would lead to a diminution of choice. As I have said, some Italian clubs have negotiated their contracts. Italy and a couple of other countries are further down the road than Britain in terms of digital and pay-per-view television. Before pay-per-view becomes fully established in this country, we should look at the effect that it has had in other countries.
In Italy, for example, supporters of a club can subscribe to pay-per-view and get all the away matches, but one cannot switch teams. Ordinary football supporters who are not avid fans of a particular club cannot mix and match; they are tied to one club. That limits choice.
I do not oppose pay-per-view television, but I want it to add to choice. As I have already said, the primary reason why pay-per-view has not yet taken off is economic—the problem of making it pay. If it is to make money—and there is no other reason why companies should introduce it—it has to take the market away from current broadcasters.
There are already 16 live football matches available, and if the Nationwide league suggests setting up a few extra pay-per-view matches later this year—that is, if pay-per-view is additional to what is already available—I do not oppose it. For my sins, I am a Tottenham supporter—somebody has to suffer. If I want to watch Tottenham, I can watch the team live on a Saturday afternoon, or if I am lucky and the live match is on Sky, I can watch it at home. If neither of those options was possible, and pay-per-view was available in addition, that would be a reasonable way to progress. It would make for additional choice.
However, if, on the contrary, pay-per-view replaced the live broadcasting, or, worse, if the time of the match were changed and moved from Saturday afternoon, when I can get there, to a prime slot at 4 o'clock on Sunday, say, when I cannot, that would lead to less choice.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: I do not share all my hon. Friend's views on pay-per-view. However, I am not sure whether digital television will work commercially. We already have pay-per-view pop concerts on the internet, and it is not clear how regulation in the United Kingdom would affect regulation of the internet.
Secondly, I hold shares in Charlton Athletic on behalf of my son Jack, and I would happily pay for a season ticket to watch all the away games, because I cannot travel


to see them. That would give me more choice. If there is a concern about cash, with digital television as with the American National Football League, for example, screens can be blacked within 60 miles of a game, so takings will not be affected. Has my hon. Friend considered that?

Mr. White: My hon. Friend has obviously read my speech, because I was about to make that point. He is right to say that, in the United States, NFL games are not allowed to be shown live unless the ground is full. There are also deals whereby merchandising and television rights are shared between clubs. Pay-per-view would therefore be an additional choice there.
If you wanted to watch Charlton, that would be reasonable as an additional choice. My fear is that the economics of pay-per-view would mean that, although you might get your way on that issue, the choice for everybody else would be diminished. That is the kind of regulation that I am looking for. You also mentioned—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in using the second person, he is referring to me. If he is talking to his hon. Friend, he should use the third person.

Mr. White: Apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friend mentioned the internet. One reason why I introduced the debate is that the converging technologies mean that the traditional way of broadcasting programmes is changing. I am not opposed to pay-per-view on the internet or television, but I want a level playing field so that pay-per-view can compete with the internet, terrestrial television and digital television.
Pay-per-view is not only about sport—it also relates to films, although it is probably too late to stop the rot for films. However, a number of social questions need to be raised. The proponents of pay-per-view have said that paying for films is just like going to the video shop. I am concerned that, if pay-per-view becomes the norm and video shops go out of business, people who do not have access to pay-per-view and cannot afford it will suffer. There are suggestions that, in those areas where pay-per-view is available—some cable companies have been running it for about six months—people are choosing five or six movies a month, and their habits are becoming quite regular. That may be true for some, but others might not be able to afford it. We must get the balance right.
There is also the question of what happens in clubs and pubs showing sport or films. If pay-per-view becomes the norm, the deals that pubs and clubs have at the moment might become much more difficult to sustain.
I have referred to the principal reasons why pay-per-view is not prevalent in sports broadcasting at the moment. However, there is one exception—boxing. I am not a boxing fan, but ITV used to have a good Saturday night fight programme. Now the only place one can see a decent boxing match is on pay-per-view. Sky subscribers who pay £30 or £40 a month for the full package will have to pay £10 extra to watch McCullough beat Naseem on Saturday night.
When I became involved in the debate, I was happy to say, "Let's ban all pay-per-view television, because it is absolutely disgraceful." However, I was quickly brought

up by my researcher, who said, "Hang on, I like watching pay-per-view. I am quite prepared to pay extra for a film or sports match. I don't want the whole package—I want the additional choice." That emphasises the point I am trying to make. If it is a question of additionality, pay-per-view is reasonable.
If the economics of pay-per-view means that the existing broadcasters of sport and films lose—if all we are left with is a 10-minute highlights programme—there will be a problem, and the quality of broadcasting that we have become used to in this country will be diminished. It is easy to destroy what we have, but it is hard to rebuild it. If pay-per-view destroys some of our broadcasting quality, I would hesitate to say that we could get back to where we are now.
Before we go much further, we need to debate the appropriate level for pay-per-view, and its regulation. We must discuss the content versus the technology. If we do not regulate, we could end up in an anti-competitive position, and we would all lose. If we get it right—and if pay-per-view is competitive and adds choice—the new technologies will give their full benefit. However, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the Select Committee report, and to ensure that, when new technologies are discussed, the question of regulation is brought up.

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) on securing a debate on pay-per-view television, and on setting out his views with such clarity. He speaks with some authority on the issue, as I understand that 40 per cent. of people in Milton Keynes are already on line—a figure far in advance of other areas.
My hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) and for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) also contributed to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West rightly pointed out his concerns about the increasing commercialisation in sport, and the need for the football task force to look at that matter. I can assure him that I will pass on his comments to my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, who will take them on board.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey spoke with great authority on the issue. He referred to regulation of the internet and how that might be achieved, and he mentioned the situation in the United States. He eloquently set out some of the important issues that we will face in the future.
This subject is of interest to many hon. Members, and many people outside. In discussing the matter, we should remember that pay-per-view is not only relevant to sport—other pay services, including films, could well be vital in television's digital future. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East referred to that. However, he is particularly concerned with sports broadcasting.
The Government's main concern in sports broadcasting is to ensure that everyone has access to those events which have a clear national resonance, and we have recently reviewed the protected list to achieve just that. Having said that, we do not believe that our responsibilities to viewers end there. Our public service broadcasters have a


responsibility to provide programming for all tastes and interests, and sport should clearly be part of what they offer. We will continue to monitor the position as the television market develops.
The shape of that market is starting to become clear. Digital satellite broadcasting has already begun, and digital terrestrial will follow shortly. Viewers will have a wider choice of channels than ever before. Those services may well include specialist sports channels, and pay-per-view may be one way for broadcasters to fund these new services for the committed sports viewer.
Pay-per-view may also bring benefits to sport, with new services covering events which broadcasters would not be able to transmit on a general channel, because of the costs of coverage or the small size of the likely audience. I shall return to that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East is concerned—he is not alone—about the possible consequences of BSkyB's takeover of Manchester United. He feels that this may lead to United's fans being asked to pay for access to coverage of the club's matches in the premier league after 2001. I can assure him that his concern on that point has been noted.
As the House is aware, the Director General of Fair Trading is presently considering his recommendation on the merger to the Secretary of State. He will announce his conclusions before 2 November. It is right that the Office of Fair Trading should be left to make an independent assessment of the issues involved, and the Government should not speculate on the outcome at this time.
My hon. Friend also noted that the restrictive practices court is considering the validity of the premier league's collective broadcasting arrangements early next year. He will understand that I cannot comment in detail on that for the same reasons. However, it is clear that the shape of the market for the rights to top league football may be very different come the spring. Given those uncertainties, we need to come to a balanced view on the subject of pay-per-view services for all sports—not just for football.
Pay-per-view sports services in this country are in their infancy, and have so far been confined to boxing matches. There has been much talk about pay-per-view in other sports, but it seems that the industry is still not sure about who will watch them, and how much they will be prepared to pay.
I believe that broadcasters and sporting bodies are right to be cautious. The issues involved in pay-per-view are complicated. It is not enough for a broadcaster to identify a potential audience for an event. Sport is an equal partner in any contract, and it must find a balance among a number of considerations—the need for wide exposure of flagship events, the impact of television coverage on attendances at grounds, to which my hon. Friend referred, and the requirements of sponsors and advertisers.
All sports wish to stay in the public eye, not least to encourage the interest and participation of young viewers. I speak with some authority on that—I have three teenage children who are fanatical Blackburn Rovers fans. Sponsoring companies often demand the exposure that only free-to-air television can bring. As a result, many sports organisations, including the International Olympic Committee and UEFA, have publicly committed themselves to free-to-air coverage.
For example, the governing body for the formula one championship has also indicated its preference for free-to-air coverage. That is despite surveys that suggest that a substantial number of viewers in the UK would be prepared to pay to watch grand prix races.
Sport must also guard against eating into its own audiences by rushing into pay-per-view. Football still takes the largest part of its income through the turnstile, and it must guard against alienating the fans who make the effort to attend matches.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, football must consider the lessons learned by overseas leagues. He mentioned Italy. When the Italian football league embraced pay-per-view, its attendances fell by more than the number of viewers watching the games on television. I am sure that my hon. friend the Minister for Sport would put that down to the decreasing appeal of the Italian league compared to those of other nations, such as our own premiership—much of Italy's national team now plays here, after all. British football must be careful, and the Government are sure that the point is not lost on those deciding future broadcasting contracts.
Broadcasters themselves acknowledge the complexities of pay-per-view. BSkyB decided against charging viewers to watch a specially arranged snooker tournament earlier this year. Although top snooker players have great appeal for viewers, BSkyB and other broadcasters realise that people want to watch meaningful and established championship events. In making arrangements for their flagship events, sports bodies usually want a balance between revenues and maximum exposure.
The tendency to self-regulation in the broadcasting market is reassuring, but we should recognise that there is a market for pay viewing of certain sports events, and that pay-per-view can bring benefits both to sport and to the armchair fan.

Mr. Wyatt: My hon. Friend may be interested in a number of other pay-per-view events—the Spice Girls were on BSkyB. However, I am more concerned with the launch of the digital channel, Film Four. If the Hollywood moguls decide to launch a film on pay-per-view ahead of its theatrical release, it will seriously affect the economics of television and of the multiplexes that are being built throughout the world. Given that Sony produce wide-screen computer screens and television sets, one can envisage which way it will go with its films. I would welcome my hon. Friend's comments on that.

Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend is right, and I am sure that he would agree that, throughout the world, we are embarking on a broadcasting revolution. We will have to wait and see how it develops. I am sure that his concern about the likely effect on theatrical productions is well founded. We shall have to guard against that, and I thank him for raising the issue.
Matches shown on pay terms will be additional to the 60 games a year shown by BSkyB. The league believes that coverage of those matches will reach a new audience of football fans committed to—dare I say it—less fashionable clubs. Those fans may be unable to travel around the country to follow their teams' away matches. Of course, there are fans who, for one reason or another, cannot get to matches at all. Many of those matches would not be shown on BSkyB's general subscription service—


or anywhere else, come to that—because the potential audience is small. Pay-per-view may have the potential to bring a new choice of services to football supporters, and there is no reason why that should not apply equally to fans of other sports.
We have to consider the position of top sports events, especially in football, which will, at least initially, attract broadcasters and sports bodies wishing to experiment with pay-per-view. Listing offers a good level of protection for free-to-air access to the very top occasions in the sport, such as the world cup, the European championships and the English and Scottish FA cup finals, but there are many other important matches. In considering the case for pay-per-view, football must be sure that it is not alienating its core audience. The Government believe that sport can and should act responsibly in making its broadcasting arrangements.
Finally, it is important that we consider the possibilities for pay-per-view football in a proper perspective. Live coverage of club football in this country is a comparatively recent phenomenon, but the free-to-air television viewer now has access to a larger number of matches than ever before. Last week, the free-to-air viewer had access to live or full delayed coverage of five top European club matches, including Manchester United's match in Denmark, which was shown by the ITV network. Two of the matches were broadcast simultaneously, but, armed with a video recorder, the viewer could have watched more than 16 hours of top football. All four of the universally available channels—and Channel 5—contributed to that figure.
The Government believe that it is important that pay-per-view should not develop at the expense of the general viewer, although we are not opposed to pay-per-view in principle. However, we also believe that free-to-air channels will continue to offer first-class sport, whatever the future shape of the broadcasting industry.
I hope that that will reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East. I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to set out the Government's position, and I again congratulate him on securing this important debate.

Agriculture (Regulation)

Mr. David Prior: I am pleased to have secured this debate. I was born and brought up on a farm—my brother now runs the family farm—and farming is very much in my bones. I am lucky to represent a constituency with such an important agricultural industry.
Farmers and agriculture are in a dreadful state. The small family farm and the livestock and poultry industry are particularly vulnerable. Pigs are being destroyed, poultry farmers are losing money, the ban on beef on the bone remains and sheep are nearly worthless. Figures produced by the National Farmers Union show that, in the past two years, the price to the farmer of pigmeat has fallen by about 57 per cent., of lamb by 40 per cent., of feed wheat by 31 per cent., and of milk by 22 per cent. Many farmers and processors face bankruptcy. The implications will be felt throughout the countryside. Rural unemployment will rise and mixed farming with extensive grass will be particularly vulnerable, with all the resultant environmental effects.
The Government do not seem to care about that. They seem to have washed their hands of the farming industry—perhaps there are simply not enough votes in farming. They are guilty of utter complacency. Farmers and processors deserve, and need, a level playing field and that is why I have chosen to focus on regulation. Over-regulation is playing straight into the hands of imports, undermining our exports and threatening the viability of much of our industry. We all know that some regulations are necessary, but they should be proportionate, sensibly and consistently applied and they should not discriminate against British producers. I shall take each of those four principles in turn.
On the first—that regulation should be proportionate—it is perhaps understandable in the aftermath of E. coli, salmonella and BSE that we should err on the side of caution, but the ban on beef on the bone is, as the Selkirk sheriff court put it, a "manifest absurdity", which is out of all proportion to the risk involved. It is a triumph of emotional over rational argument. Indeed, the on-going ban may damage the potential for exporting British beef—a classic case of the law of unintended consequences at work. A continuing ban sets just the wrong context for the proposed Food Standards Agency. Of course, consumer safety is paramount, but let us keep some sense of proportion. By all means disclose the facts to consumers, but let them, and not the nanny state, decide.
The second principle is that regulation should be applied sensibly. In the past 18 months, my dislike of the officious bureaucrat has increased daily. These days, it is almost as though officials were trying to catch out farmers and food processors. I shall give three examples. The first relates to the integrated control and administration system forms. I have heard from numerous farmers who have been massively penalised for making tiny and obviously innocent mistakes in filling in their IACS forms. Is there any discretion at MAFF? Apparently not. Is there any question of turning a blind eye? Again, apparently not. Simple mistakes happen and British farmers are penalised, but it is hard to imagine that happening in the olive groves of Spain, Italy or France.
The second example—I have written to the Minister about it—concerns a small, family-owned abattoir in my constituency. It operates for only 12 hours a week—on two separate days—dealing with small farms and supplying small butchers. It is a traditional business in a traditional Norfolk market town. I have been around the abattoir. The inspection regime since the implementation of the 1998 EU meat hygiene and inspection regulation means that, on occasions, there are four supervisors in charge of two slaughtermen. My constituent says:
The supervisors fall over each other to find work to do which is not available, so more expense is incurred through constant tea making.
More seriously, such high and absurd levels of inspection will lead to the demise of small abattoirs and food processors, and will do nothing for public safety or animal welfare. The knock-on effect on small farms and retailers will play straight into the hands of large producers and supermarkets, for which regulation is a positive competitive benefit. British meat will be replaced by imports that are not subject to our high standards of welfare and hygiene, and British farmers and animals will be the losers.
I give one more example of a crazy application of an EC directive, about which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) is also deeply concerned. In its wisdom, the EC introduced the fresh red meat directive, which provided for increased veterinary supervision in red meat abattoirs. What do the Government do? They voluntarily decide—I quote the words of chief executive of the Meat Hygiene Service in a letter dated September 1998—that
supervision levels should also be increased in poultry slaughterhouses
to the same standard. That is the kind of gratuitous nonsense that infuriates British producers and undermines their competitiveness. The extra cost of compliance is estimated at 3p per bird—often the difference between making a profit and making a loss—and the quality, variability and cost of the official veterinary surgeons service are deeply resented.
The third principle is that regulation should be consistently applied—there should be one standard for British farmers and processors, and that standard should be applied consistently to imports. I was struck by a report in the Financial Times of 26 October that claimed that EU vets had found Australian slaughterhouses and cold stores "generally weak". They witnessed "cruel treatment of animals" and they found that
vermin proofing was inadequate, maintenance and cleanliness was neglected",
all of which had consequences for public health. Australia had been given a six-month ultimatum, which one might think fair enough until one realised that that was at the end of a six-year dispute.
In East Anglia, we have a big poultry industry. One of my constituents showed me a box of imported whole frozen turkeys from Italy. The birds had clearly been thrown—unwrapped except for some newspaper—into a cardboard box, which breaks all known hygiene regulations, specifically the one that states that birds should be
enclosed in a sealed protective covering".
Regulations are not properly enforced in much of Europe. Most of us have seen at first hand the way in which in European countries, cheese and meats are kept without

refrigeration. I have seen cheese kneaded by sweaty, hairy-chested, bare-headed Italians—very good it was too—when such methods would be totally disallowed in this country. There is no consistency, and we are allowing our farmers and processors to be unfairly penalised.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Is not another example of the hon. Gentleman's point the fact that pig farming is much more stringently regulated in the UK than among our European competitors? The abolition in the UK of stalls and tethers, for example, amounts to an attack on pig farming here.

Mr. Prior: I fully agree with that point, with which I shall deal in a minute.
The fourth principle is that regulation should not be discriminatory against British products. In a press release issued earlier this year, the Minister called for higher welfare standards across Europe—I agree with that whole-heartedly, as I believe that welfare standards should be constantly improved. He said that there were no common EU rules on the treatment of animals on farms. For example, the Conservative Government banned pig stalls and tethers in this country, but in the rest of the EU the restrictions are fewer and will not be phased in until 2006. Why should we continue to import pigmeat that has been produced in conditions that we have rightly banned in this country? I could make the same point about the production of veal in veal crates, which were properly banned by the previous Government.
In this country, meat and bonemeal have been banned from the feed ration. Why should we import poultry and meat products from other animals that are fed with animal protein? We are even exporting bones to France to be rendered down into bonemeal, so that the French can feed it to poultry and export the product to us, giving them approximately a 3p per pound cost advantage. That is crazy, but the same applies to antibiotic residue testing, which should be applied to all imports.
Our farmers and processors need a level playing field. Imports should match our high standards and regulation should be consistently and sensibly applied rather than disproportionate to the risk involved. At the very least, imports should be properly labelled, so that consumers know what they are buying. The label should state where the meat is produced and not only where it is packaged, which can be misleading—often deliberately so.

Dr. Ian Gibson: The hon. Gentleman mentioned risk analysis. How would he assess the risk analysis of some of those products, and in whose interests would he do it—those of the consumer, the European hairy-chested Italian, about whom he racistly talks, or his farming friends?

Mr. Prior: I dislike the hon. Gentleman's pejorative use of the words "his farming friends". Frankly, the farmers should be the friends of all hon. Members. There must be a balance and some common sense. Of course the consumer must be properly protected, but not disproportionately so. I accept that risk assessment is extremely difficult, but it cannot be left only to scientific experts—common-sense judgments must be applied.
There must be full disclosure, so that consumers can make up their own minds about what they are eating. Labels should clearly state the health, hygiene, feed and


welfare standards to which the product conforms. Let the consumer then decide. However, in a written parliamentary answer, the Minister of State said that he had no intention of requiring imported meat to be labelled to show whether it had been fed on animal proteins. He went out of his way to say:
There are no proposals to extend labelling requirements to cover compliance with national animal health and welfare standards."—[Official Report, 29 June 1998; Vol. 315, c. 106.]
That is disgraceful. Many consumers will be horrified to know that they are eating imported food products produced in welfare conditions that have rightly been banned for years in this country.
We all want the British farmer and food processor to produce safe, high-quality and tasty products, and of course regulation is necessary to achieve that and to give the consumer sensible protection. However, we are running the risk of regulating ourselves out of the market. If we are not careful, it will not be economically possible to produce poultry, pig, lamb and beef products in this country. Instead, we shall end up importing products from countries where welfare standards are much lower than ours and where quality and food safety are less reliable.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) on raising serious concerns about the impact of regulation on British agriculture. I agree that excessive and unnecessary regulation must be avoided, but it is difficult to avoid a certain amount of regulation, for all sorts of reasons.
As a Government, we recognise the difficulties facing many sections of agriculture, especially in relation to prices. I was disappointed that the hon. Gentleman, in what was generally a reasonable and well-argued speech, came out with the nonsense that the Government do not care about what is happening to agriculture. That is most certainly not true. Farmers and rural organisations know very well that we care and that we are giving all the support that we can, including the extra £78 million for the beef and sheep sector last winter and a range of other support.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the ban on beef on the bone. The risk of BSE getting into the food chain is not theoretical: so far, 30 people have died from new-variant CJD and others are suspected to be suffering from it. It would be ridiculous for any Government—let alone a Government who have made it clear that we intend to put consumer safety before all other considerations—to allow material that was known to carry a risk of infection to go into the food chain; to have done so, we would have had to put a warning on beef on the supermarket shelves saying that there was a risk to consumers, and we are not prepared to do that.
All beef that is on sale in this country—and that which, I am glad to say, is now being exported from Northern Ireland—is absolutely safe; we are absolutely confident about that. It is not good enough to say that we should take risks. It is difficult to give people choices when beef on the bone could be used in stocks and gravies and consumers in catering establishments would not know

what was in their food. We have to ensure that consumers are protected. I am hopeful that the ban will be a temporary measure. We shall certainly review it again under the date-based scheme, following appropriate advice from our expert scientific committees.

Mr. James Paice: If that is the case, why are the bones that are removed from the meat not classified as specified material? Why, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) said, can they be exported, turned into bonemeal and fed to animals the products of which can come back into this country? Either the bones are dangerous, or they are not.

Mr. Morley: It is not my understanding that that happens. There is a restriction on what can be used in meat and bonemeal. Bones from the pig industry, for example, are allowed to be exported if they are from dedicated plants.
I appreciate the point that the hon. Member for North Norfolk made about welfare standards. We have been pressing for improved welfare standards throughout the European Union, and we want to achieve common standards on, for example, battery cages.
We support better labelling, as we want consumers to have as much information as possible. Part of that has to be negotiated through the European Union, as we need common agreement, which can sometimes be difficult. Retailers have the freedom to label, and many already have detailed labelling linked to quality assurance schemes, and we very much welcome and support that, because it gives our producers, such as those in the pig industry, who have the highest welfare and quality standards in Europe, a marketing advantage, in that they can meet the quality assurance criteria that the retailers set.
I strongly disagree with the hon. Gentleman when he talks about turning a blind eye to regulations. I am sure that he did not mean that quite as it sounded. We cannot turn a blind eye to regulations, and especially not those that are designed to protect consumer safety or to ensure that taxpayers' money is used appropriately in the various support schemes. The schemes must be monitored, run and audited properly.
Whenever I hear it said that regulations are not enforced in Europe, I say let us see the evidence. Where there is evidence that other European Union member states are not enforcing the rules, we will take action.

Mr. Prior: Part of the evidence is the massive fraud that goes on in the common agricultural policy. Is that not some evidence that the rules are not being applied on the continent?

Mr. Morley: There is certainly fraud in the CAP; indeed, there have been irregularities in CAP payments in our own country, which have quite properly been pursued. The fact that the fraud is identified demonstrates the fact that the European system works. The European Court of Auditors is becoming increasingly successful in tracking down fraud, and quite rightly so.
I repeat that, where there is evidence of other countries not complying with regulations, we will not hesitate to raise the matter with the European Commission and, if necessary, take it to the European Court—we have made


that clear time and time again—but the idea that only the UK enforces the rules does not stand up to critical examination. Indeed, the previous Government were in breach of European regulations by not applying the directive on slaughterhouses. The hon. Gentleman spoke about veterinary inspections, but the relevant directive was not applied by the previous Administration. We have been warned by the Commission that it will take action against us if we do not comply as other member states do.
European Union and domestic support measures put £3 billion a year into agriculture, leaving aside the special sums for BSE-related measures, which alone amounted to £800 million in 1997–98. Those are large sums, and we need regulations to ensure that the money goes to those who are eligible and that the benefits are properly verified.
We need regulations to safeguard public health. I accept that they have become more complicated with the changes in food preparation and production methods, and there has to be a balance between proper enforcement and targeting risk areas to avoid the exploitation of loopholes by the unscrupulous.
We are prepared to review the controls at regular intervals so that they can be modified to achieve what they are designed for. Specified risk materials regulations are a case in point. We have amended the regulations on removal of the spinal cord to allow the trade in unsplit carcases to be resumed. That has been warmly welcomed by the sheep industry. We can still meet the regulations, so the spinal column can be removed but the carcase can be sent directly to French cutting plants.
We want to protect consumers and producers by ensuring that there is public confidence. Without that confidence, markets will fall. We have witnessed that with BSE, which has been a catastrophe for the livestock industry, devastating the beef industry and having knock-on effects on the sheep sector. We have been struggling to get to grips with the BSE problem and bring it to an end, and we are confident that there is light at the end of the tunnel.
Last April, we needed to implement new specified risk material controls. That would have cost the industry £35 million, but, recognising the pressures on the livestock sector, the Government have absorbed those costs and not passed on that £35 million to the livestock industry.
The Government want to ensure that we sustain a good environment to maintain biodiversity. As agriculture covers some 75 per cent. of our land, it has a key role in that. In 1997–98, payments of £14.7 million were made under the countryside stewardship scheme alone, and we support agriculture in its efforts in 22 designated environmentally sensitive areas. However, sometimes, genuine mistakes are made in all sorts of forms, be it special premium or IACS forms. The Government understand that. However, the regulations are laid down. These are European Union payments through CAP. The regulations come from the EU and we have little room for manoeuvre in relation to them.
Many IACS forms are being sent in and the applicants are receiving in return many thousands of pounds in relation to arable area payments; in many cases, large payments are made. If farmers are not confident about avoiding mistakes, professional advisers and consultants will do that for them. Obviously, there is a charge, but,

when dealing with thousands of pounds of money, that is something that some farmers could and, indeed, do consider.

Mr. Öpik: On that point, sometimes the payments are delayed through no fault of the farmer—in other words, it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to try to bring those payments up a bit. In those circumstances, will the Minister consider investigating the possibility of interest payments on lost earnings as a result of the delay of the payment to the farmer?

Mr. Morley: I accept that there have been cases of slow payments. Particularly in present financial circumstances, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture Food has made it clear that we shall consider trying to speed up payments, so that money gets to farmers as quickly as possible. That is being done at present. All our regional service centres are aware of the Government's desire to ensure that the money gets into farmers' hands as quickly as possible and that we do not have undue delay, so I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing with that point.
The hon. Member for North Norfolk mentioned his concerns about the abattoir sector. It is true that regulation has been changed to increase veterinary supervision of such premises. That does have an effect, particularly on small slaughterhouses; the Government understand that. We share many of those concerns, but I emphasise that the Government do not advocate regulation simply for the sake of it; simply because we want more of it. We support requirements on meat hygiene that can be justified on public health grounds.
The safety of food is one of the Government's priorities. We believe that meat should be produced to the highest standards in this country. I remind the hon. Member for North Norfolk that one of the reasons why BSE went on for as long as it did and at the level that it did, is that, even when controls were introduced by the previous Administration, in many cases, they were not being properly applied in slaughterhouses or meat plants. Those are important issues, and they have to be dealt with properly.
We did not lightly take the decision to increase veterinary supervision but, as I have mentioned, it was necessary to implement the previous Government's under-implementation of the harmonised EU meat hygiene rules. The European Commission has initiated legal proceedings against the UK for its failure to implement fully the specific veterinary supervision requirements that are laid down in the fresh meat directive.
That relates to poultry as well as to red meat. It is not a question of the Government saying, "Wouldn't it be a good idea if we applied that to poultry as well?" It is laid down by EU directive and we have to comply with that.
We have taken steps to raise supervision levels towards those required and believe that those steps are essential to improve control over meat-licensed premises, to avoid a European court case, as well as to support our efforts to have the beef export ban lifted for the whole of the UK. Hon. Members can appreciate that we are in the final stages of getting the ban lifted. We are very confident that we have made significant progress on that. It is our objective to get that ban lifted before the end of the year.
If we were not implementing EU directives on slaughterhouses, there is no possibility that we could get that ban lifted. We can go to the EU and make it clear to it that we are complying with all EU directives, as well as the tight regulations that we have to protect the consumer.
The regulations come from the EU. They set out in great detail what is required of member states and are tightly drawn. I accept that the regulations are sometimes complex, but controls are necessary to protect EU and Exchequer funds from fraud.
I have mentioned the fact that we do not have much discretion over how those rules are implemented. We are exploring the scope to cut bureaucracy whenever we can. An example is that we are consulting with the industry on a proposal for producers no longer to have to apply for a separate document to accompany beef special premium scheme claims. Under that proposal, producers will be able to apply for premium using existing cattle passport documents, which we have recently introduced.
As to the future reform of livestock schemes under Agenda 2000 proposals, one of our objectives in negotiation is to look, wherever possible, for simplification of current arrangements. That may be difficult to achieve. Indeed, as long as we have subsidies, we have to have some regulation to control them. That goes with the CAP and it goes with subsidies.
We have a range of priorities in negotiations, such as the need to ensure that Agenda 2000 addresses restructuring of the sector. Current Agenda 2000 proposals do not look promising in terms of simplifying regulations, but we shall continue to push for that wherever possible.
We want to look at cases where farmers feel aggrieved. We do that when farmers make appeals, through regional service centres, that they have been unfairly treated.
I have spoken about why we need to have regulation, but we recognise the impact that it can have. For that reason, we have sought to ensure that many of the recommendations on regulation are included in the Department's efficiency scrutiny study to reduce the burden of paperwork on farmers. Although, in many cases, it has been difficult—because of the overriding need to get consumers and EU confidence back into our beef production—we have made considerable progress in simplifying regulation. So far, about £5.4 million worth of farmers' time should have been saved through changes to procedures and an additional £1.1 million should be realised next year when new simplification comes through.
When introducing new schemes or revising existing ones, we consult the industry. We keep careful control on forms. We check that every question is essential and that the forms are clear. We trial them wherever possible and aim to keep the burden of time spent on filling them in proportion to the benefits to be gained.
We are increasingly using modern electronic technology to save farmers time. Many forms are now sent out to producers with basic information, such as names, addresses and holding numbers, pre-printed on the form. For the suckler cow scheme, we also pre-print figures on the number of animals notified for the preceding years' scheme. In that way, farmers need notify us only of changes, instead of going through the whole procedure. We have a system in place so that all forms that we use in the Ministry are reviewed for need and content at least once every three years, to ensure that there is still a role for them and that they are not just a waste of time for farmers.
A further consideration is that most regulations in the UK are an integral part of the CAP or the EU's single market. EU schemes have to take account of operating systems in all member countries to ensure as far as possible an even playing field and consistent enforcement. That can also affect the complexity of regulations.
We consult with those involved when we bring in regulations. We seek to adjust regulations after criticisms or suggestions. For example, we recently conducted a survey of the beef suckler cow premium scheme form. Much of it was found to be reasonable, but we are considering a few troublesome points to find out what changes we can make. We consulted on the SRM regulations, which allow exports of unsplit sheep carcases.
All the inspectorates and enforcement agencies that come under MAFF are reviewing their standards of practice to ensure the full spirit of the Government's enforcement concordat initiative. That concordat will, I hope, be adopted by local authorities and, to the extent that their activities impinge on agriculture, the benefits of better enforcement will also be felt there.
The regulation issue is important. An element of regulation is unavoidable to help to protect public health and safety, to ensure proper controls of animal and plant diseases and to safeguard taxpayers' money, as well as to boost the economic health of our industry through providing confidence to consumers and a fair framework. We do not introduce regulations lightly. We shall review them, but we believe that what we have at the moment is fair and balanced.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Irish Language Schools

Ms Margaret Moran: What plans she has to increase the number of Irish language schools. [54760]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): Following the Government's commitment in the Belfast agreement, the Department of Education has a statutory duty to facilitate and encourage Irish-medium education and is drawing up proposals for the funding of a body to promote its development. In addition, arrangements are in place to enable Irish-medium pre-school provision to be grant aided within the pre-school education expansion programme for Northern Ireland. Around 1,250 pupils are currently enrolled in grant-aided Irish-medium schools in Northern Ireland.

Ms Moran: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, and for the requirement in the education order to encourage and facilitate Irish-medium schools. Does he acknowledge that an impediment to achieving that objective remains in the school numbers criteria, which restrict several Irish-medium schools, such as the Meanscoil Dhoire in Derry, from receiving registration and funding? Will my hon. Friend undertake to reconsider the school numbers criteria so that the agreement's laudable objective of increasing the number of Irish-medium schools is achieved?

Mr. Murphy: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. We recently reduced the viable entrance criterion from 100 to 80 for secondary schools. The school to which she referred does not, unfortunately, meet current viability thresholds, but we are considering setting up an Irish-medium unit at St. Brigid's secondary school. The school to which my hon. Friend referred is receiving £120,000 from the European Union, and there is a possibility of further capital funding.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The Belfast agreement refers to the Council of Europe's charter for regional and minority languages. Can the Minister confirm that it states that the promotion of Irish should take place only where it is desired, and that Irish will not be generally promoted throughout Northern Ireland, where only 3 per cent. of people are fluent in it?

Mr. Murphy: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. Irish-medium education depends on viability and on whether people want to be taught through the medium of Irish. As far as general use of the Irish language is concerned, the Government are committed to ensuring that there are no obstacles in the way of those who desire to learn it and use it.

Peace Process

Mr. John Smith: Which parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly she has met to discuss the level of public support for the peace process; and if she will make a statement. [54762]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): My ministerial colleagues and I have met all the political parties represented in the Assembly several times, and I met most of the parties yesterday to discuss support for the Good Friday agreement and how we can maintain momentum.

Mr. Smith: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Will she join me in congratulating the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) on winning the Nobel peace prize? The prize confers great honour on the House, and every hon. Member should recognise that. Will my right hon. Friend tell us what hopes she has for the initiative taken by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to find a consensus among all the parties in Northern Ireland on progress towards the next stage of implementation of the Good Friday agreement?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and join him in congratulating the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) on their tremendous achievement. They both deserve it royally. The initiative mentioned was launched on Monday and I understand that it will commence tomorrow with discussions with all the parties in an attempt to resolve a number of outstanding issues under the Good Friday agreement. I wish them every success in that effort. It is important that they are dealing with the issues between the parties on the ground and discussing them themselves. I wish them luck.

Mr. David Trimble: May I refer the Secretary of State to ceasefires by paramilitary organisations? I am sure that she wants to ensure that the Government operate even-handedly. In particular, I refer her to the ceasefire by the Loyalist Volunteer Force, which has held for several months and appears to be just as genuine as any other paramilitary ceasefire. What is the attitude of the Northern Ireland Office to that ceasefire? Has she received recently any fresh assessment from any element in the security forces with regard to it?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. I assure him that I want to act even-handedly with all groups associated with trying to find a ceasefire. He particularly referred to the LVF. I have said before that I will keep the situation under constant review, and I have. I have received a recent report from the security forces which I am reviewing. I have said that I will make a judgment in the following weeks on whether I think that the situation needs to be reviewed. It is a serious, difficult issue and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not dragging my feet.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: We in the Northern Ireland community greatly rejoiced at the award of the Nobel peace prize to my party leader and the leader of the Ulster Unionist party. We have made our exaltation


known to them personally already. The Secretary of State will share my disappointment that this phase of the Belfast agreement is not likely to be implemented by 31 October. Does she agree that the immediate cause of the impasse is the failure to agree on the departmental structures of the north of Ireland and on the implementing bodies north and south? While both communities desire at least token decommissioning of weapons by both republican and loyalist paramilitaries, that thorny and emotive problem was handed by the agreement to an international, independent decommissioning body.

Marjorie Mowlam: It is important to have deadlines to focus people. I hope that we continue to work to 31 October even though it is close and it may be difficult to get there. That does not mean that we should not try. Several issues are creating difficulties: decommissioning and the Executive body. Then there is the progress that I hope that the parties will make with the work done by the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the parties tomorrow. It is important that progress is made in parallel on all aspects of the agreement so that confidence can be built and we can get more momentum back in the process.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: What would the Secretary of State regard as satisfactory and significant progress by the 31 October deadline, given that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have been working hard over the summer, especially in the past few weeks, to make the progress that we need for a lasting settlement?

Marjorie Mowlam: It is difficult for me to set an absolute baseline. Obviously, we want as much progress as possible, but what is happening more and more—and this is what is important—is that it is the parties, their leaders, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister who are trying to take the process forward. Of course, the Government will do all that we can in terms of pace, help and encouragement—as, I am sure, will the Irish Government—to help make progress.
Deadlines are important. We have missed them before. We missed the one for the Good Friday agreement by a number of days, but everybody managed to live with that and make progress afterwards. We are still working at it.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will the Secretary of State accept that all reasonable people would expect there to be no further early releases of terrorist prisoners until there is substantial and verifiable decommissioning of all illegally held weapons and explosives?

Marjorie Mowlam: I appreciate the support of the right hon. Gentleman and his party for the Good Friday agreement. I look forward to that support extending to its contents. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, neither he nor I—no one—can renegotiate the Good Friday agreement. It is there and it says that there must be progress in parallel on all the different dimensions. It also says that if progress is not being made on different dimensions, it can be reviewed. I have not forgotten that. This is not about grabbing headlines. This is about the work taking place on the ground by the parties trying to make progress. We should give them the support, encouragement and space necessary to do that.

Mr. MacKay: Will the Secretary of State accept that, from the Dispatch Box, her Prime Minister made it clear

that decommissioning was part of the agreement and part of the renunciation of violence? We have now had over six months and not one single gun or one ounce of Semtex has been handed in. Over the same time, over 150 hardened terrorist prisoners have been released early. That is not parallel.

Marjorie Mowlam: I have made clear to the right hon. Gentleman on other occasions the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I shall repeat them. He said that decommissioning is crucial, that it is a central part of the agreement and that we want all dimensions to move in parallel. If there is no progress, we will review it. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), gave a commitment that we would support the parties, the people and the Parliament when they made a decision. That is what we intend to do.

Mental Health Provision

Rev. Martin Smyth: What plans she has to improve mental health provision. [54763]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that the plans for the development of mental health services are set out in the document, "Regional Strategy for Health and Social Well-Being 1997–2002". That document sets out quality targets and time scales so that we can be sure that we do all we can to meet the needs of the most vulnerable in society.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome that response, but will the right hon. Lady accept that, while there are those of us who have been supporting care in the community, there is also deepening concern that there may not be enough secure units for people who need special help? Will she also accept that the changes suggested for Muckamore Abbey hospital—taking the power of decision from parents and guardians—are causing great concern in relation to children and young people, who are particularly vulnerable?

Marjorie Mowlam: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there are six traditional hospitals with secure units for people with mental health difficulties and there are wards within the major hospitals. The plan that is being put together will look at the question raised by the hon. Gentleman—need in relation to community. The hon. Gentleman will know from his constituency that beds have been moved from one institution that helps people with mental health difficulties to another. It is those specifics that are being considered by the regional strategy to ensure that the aims stated by the hon. Gentleman are those achieved. There is a section addressed particularly to young people because, as the hon. Gentleman and I agree, that is a crucial part of the future development of mental health care in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House will welcome her robust defence of the entirety of the Belfast agreement? Will she ensure that that applies also to the proposed powers—

Madam Speaker: Order. This question is about mental health. Perhaps I will look to the hon. Gentleman on a more appropriate question.

Educational Standards

Mr. Phil Hope: What steps her Department has taken to ensure high educational standards in Northern Ireland. [54764]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): Educational standards have improved substantially in recent years, but they could be higher still. The school improvement programme and a number of other initiatives, including a reduction in class sizes for the youngest pupils and the expansion of pre-school education, have been introduced to ensure that standards continue to improve.

Mr. Hope: Does my hon. Friend agree that educational standards and, probably as important, wider community development would be greatly enhanced if we could promote integrated education much more widely in Northern Ireland? Can he assure me that every effort is being made by the Government to promote the transformation of schools into integrated schools so that many more of our children in Northern Ireland can grow up in an atmosphere and culture of co-operation and learning across the religious divide?

Mr. Murphy: I agree with my hon. Friend. Integrated education provides an opportunity for young people in Northern Ireland to be educated in a unique way. I am glad to tell the House that there are now 40 such integrated schools in Northern Ireland. We have also set up a co-ordinating group to improve the further development of those schools and we intend to spend a further £30 million in the next three years on integrated education in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Minister agree that the provision of a pre-school place for every child whose parents seek one will eventually increase the achievement of children at primary and post-primary level? Does he further agree that greater collaboration between grammar schools, secondary schools and colleges on local education provision could enhance standards? Does he agree that there is now a unique opportunity under the Labour Government for secondary schools to embark on providing lifelong learning for the whole of the communities that are served by them, thereby raising standards for every individual?

Mr. Murphy: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Much of what he has said is the policy of my party. Across the board—from pre-school to further education—the Government are committed to the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. We are ensuring that there are 2,200 extra pre-school places from September. That is the largest increase ever. We have spent £50 million extra in Northern Ireland on education. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's questions. I agree with every point that he has made.

Economy

Mr. Ian Pearson: What progress has been made towards strengthening the economy in Northern Ireland. [54765]

Mr. Brian White: What progress has been made in promoting a strong and sustainable economy in Northern Ireland. [54768]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Northern Ireland economy is performing very well. Unemployment continues to fall and is at its lowest level since 1980. Manufacturing output is outpacing the United Kingdom average. The Chancellor's economic package announced in May offers major benefits, and the current north American investment tour has attracted significant interest. These measures will greatly assist us to exploit the economic opportunities presented by lasting peace and stability.

Mr. Pearson: I spent time working in Northern Ireland in the late 1980s encouraging enterprise. The business climate is now transformed and the economic prospects are far better. I welcome the north American investment tour. What indications are there of its success? What other measures are planned to ensure that more Northern Ireland companies do more business in our European home market?

Mr. Ingram: It is too early to say what the outcome of the 11-city tour, or north American investment tour, will be. We have attracted more than 1,000 business interests from the cities that we have visited. We have had a high-quality input from the business community in north America and we have had a high level of endorsement from existing United States investors in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to everyone who participated in that north American tour, including the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), and the hon. Members for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson).
Clearly, the whole of Europe is an important marketplace for the Northern Ireland economy. It is for that reason that we are targeting that market as well, through a number of initiatives. I can advise the House that all the Assembly Members have been invited on, and most of them will participate in, a visit to the European Union next week so that they can get up to speed on this important issue.

Mr. White: I left Northern Ireland at the age of 18 because of the lack of job prospects. Does the Minister agree that structural unemployment is one of the key issues facing Northern Ireland, and will he outline the success of the new deal in Northern Ireland, with particular reference to the environmental task force and community and voluntary groups?

Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend has touched on an important range of matters. He is right about structural unemployment, which is an endemic and deep problem within Northern Ireland's economy. One of the initiatives we have taken is a £40-million package announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor earlier this year, which is to be targeted on long-term unemployment among those


aged 25 and over. That will provide schemes covering up to 30,000 unemployed people and will go a long way toward redressing much of the structural unemployment-causing imbalance inherent in the Northern Ireland economy. The scheme represents one third of the total UK schemes for the 25-plus group. It sits alongside other initiatives covering 18 to 24-year-olds and the new measures the Government are taking through the targeting social need initiatives.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Does the Minister agree that strengthening the economy requires long-term planning? Will he tell the House what long-term plans were made in respect of prison officers who, inevitably, would be made redundant as a result of political progress in Northern Ireland? Will he tell us how many prison officers are likely to be made redundant over the next two years; and what efforts have been made to put in place fast-track retraining facilities to deal with those officers who are likely to be thrown on the scrap heap of the unemployed?

Mr. Ingram: My feeling is that many of the prison officers who enter the employment market will not be thrown on the scrap heap of the unemployed, if we can increase the level of job opportunities in Northern Ireland. To achieve that, we need to have peace and stability. The number of prison officers who are likely to be made redundant is rather indeterminate, depending as it does on the pace of prisoner releases and changes in the approach taken toward the whole prison regime in Northern Ireland. A review is currently taking place of the long-term needs of the prison regime as it serves Northern Ireland's interests. In addition, through the Prison Service, we have entered into negotiations with prison officers to look at some of the issues—indeed, all of them and more—the hon. Gentleman raises.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: Given that the agri-food industry is the largest industry in Northern Ireland and that farming faces its biggest crisis this century, with farm incomes down 50 per cent. in two years and agricultural bank debt increasing to £500 million, when are the Government going to act to prevent a major collapse in the rural economy; or is that yet another price worth paying in the fight against inflation?

Mr. Ingram: To hear any Conservative Member bleating on behalf of farmers is a bit rich, given what the Conservatives did to the farming community during the many years they were in power. The Government have set out to deal with the problem of BSE that we inherited; to return confidence to the meat and livestock markets; to take new initiatives to give support to the farming community; and to ensure that a local purchasing approach is taken within Northern Ireland's economy. That last measure is important, because farming is an important part of the overall economy in Northern Ireland. We have grasped the issue firmly and we are making progress. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. We can barely hear what is being said.

Women's Involvement in Politics

Maria Eagle: What steps she is taking to encourage more women to become involved in elected politics. [54766]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): In dealing with that question, we should be careful not to make the mistake of thinking that, because no women from Northern Ireland have been elected to the European Parliament or to the House, women in Northern Ireland are not politically active. Over the years, women in Northern Ireland have done a lot to build the peace process, and to build trust from the bottom up. Of the 108 Assembly Members, 14 are women. Ultimately, it will be for the parties to decide whether women manage to come through and win election.
We have done everything that we can on the issue. Northern Ireland hosted the conference of women European Union Ministers. Earlier this year, we also held the women's national commission regional conference. A couple of months ago, Hillary Clinton and I hosted a conference, "Vital Voices", to encourage more women to seek office.

Maria Eagle: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and warmly welcome the progress that is clearly being made in Northern Ireland to ensure that more women participate in elected office. Does she agree that further progress towards gender equality in elected office could only assist the peace process, and that such equality will be a clear and visible indication that all sections of both communities are participating and being represented in the on-going peace process?

Marjorie Mowlam: I agree with my hon. Friend, and assure her that what we can do in monitoring, targeting and encouraging movement in the public sector, particularly the civil service, is being done. It is the political parties themselves that will be involved in making progress, and I am sure that they have heard her message.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Although I welcome any action to encourage more women to stand for elected office in Northern Ireland, may I ask the Secretary of State whether she will resist the temptation to revert to a former socialist policy of single-sex lists for nomination—bearing in mind that most women wish to be elected not only because of their ability, but because of what they stand for and can offer to the electorate?

Marjorie Mowlam: I am sure that the hon. Lady heard me say that the matter is for the individual political parties, whether they are in Britain or in Northern Ireland.

Equal Opportunities

Mr. Chris Pond: What measures her Department has taken to promote equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland. [54767]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): Parliament is currently considering the Northern Ireland Bill, which provides for a new


equality commission and for a new statutory obligation on public authorities to perform their functions with due regard for equal opportunities.

Mr. Pond: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I also welcome the establishment of the equality commission—as, I am sure, will the recently established Northern Ireland Low Pay Unit, which, I am sure, will receive the House's support. Does my hon. Friend accept that, in addition to those developments, the new deal—about which we have heard much today—and the national minimum wage will have a major impact in Northern Ireland by reducing the disproportionate impact of low pay and the gender pay gap between men and women in Northern Ireland? Will he tell the House when the national minimum wage will be introduced in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Murphy: I assure my hon. Friend that the national minimum wage will be the same across the United Kingdom and that the Northern Ireland Assembly will have no power to vary it. I can tell him also that discussions are continuing on other aspects of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 for which the Northern Ireland Departments are currently responsible.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the Minister confirm that, in Northern Ireland, there must be equality of opportunity between democrats and the representatives of gunmen, and that there can be no progress in the peace process by placing the representatives of armed tenor in government while terrorists remain fully armed with explosives and guns?

Mr. Murphy: It is very important that, as my right hon. Friend said, we implement all aspects of the Good Friday agreement, which was a package in favour of which the people of Northern Ireland voted by a very large majority. Events in the next few days in Belfast—with talks between the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and all the party political leaders, including the hon. and learned Gentleman—will go a long way towards ensuring that those problems are resolved.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister said that the agreement had to be implemented in full. Will my hon. Friend therefore give an undertaking to the House that all the direct powers given to the equality commission and to the human rights commission and outlined in the agreement will be put in place, specifically with regard to victimless crimes?

Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend is aware, because we met earlier today to discuss these matters, that I and my right hon. Friend have had many meetings to consult on various aspects of the Bill—probably an unprecedented amount of consultation. I assure him that the agreement will be implemented in the Northern Ireland Bill.

Drumcree

Mr. William Thompson: What is the estimated cost of the security forces' deployment at Drumcree in 1998. [54769]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The additional cost of the Royal Ulster Constabulary operations at Drumcree, including the consequential impact elsewhere, during July 1998 amounted to approximately £11 million. Since July, additional costs have continued to be incurred by police at approximately £400,000 per month, due to the continuing protest.

Mr. Thompson: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that had the Parades Commission taken the right decision and allowed the parade down the Garvaghy road, the expenditure would have been much less. Does he further agree that had the proper decision been taken, the subsequent deaths and injuries might not have occurred? Finally, will he acknowledge that, as a result of the bad decision, community relations are at an all-time low in the Portadown district?

Mr. Ingram: It is worth while reflecting momentarily on the fact that one Royal Ulster Constabulary officer has lost his life as a result, and many others have been driven from their homes because of thuggery and brutal actions against them and their families. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not refer to that.
There can be no question but that there is a need to uphold the rule of law at all times. That is something that this Government and previous Governments have done throughout the long history of Northern Ireland. The cost of that is one that the British taxpayer is prepared to pay because upholding the law is fundamental to all of us. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the decision was wrong. It was a properly arrived at decision. Of course, we are now seeking to move it forward by bringing the two sides of the community together. The Government are very active in achieving some reconciliation within that community with the help of people from that community.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Howard Flight: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 28 October.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Flight: I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree that a common European Union withholding tax would be disastrous for employment and for the earnings of the City of London. Will he agree to use our veto if necessary to stop that happening?

The Prime Minister: We will certainly use our veto to stop any measure that will harm the City of London.


I have to say that not all measures that we agree with our European partners would do that, but if any measure did do that, we would certainly not hesitate to use our veto.

Mr. Alan Johnson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that in the House last night the Conservative Opposition attempted to prevent British workers from being protected by basic minimum standards for hours of work, rest breaks and paid holidays. Will he assure me that the Government will continue to promote fairness in the workplace, thus ensuring that the Conservative party, which opposes the minimum wage and minimum standards, will remain a very minimum party?

The Prime Minister: We will certainly introduce the minimum wage. We believe that the Opposition's calls for the minimum wage to be cancelled next year are wrong and do nothing for people on very low incomes, for their families or for the economy. We believe that basic, fair, decent standards in the workplace are fully compatible with an effective and dynamic economy.

Mr. William Hague: The Prime Minister committed himself at the election to a referendum on the voting system in this Parliament. Is he still committed to it?

The Prime Minister: We have made it clear that we will state our position when the Jenkins commission reports tomorrow.

Mr. Hague: What is wrong with answering a question in this House yes or no? Does not the Prime Minister's answer reveal that he has got himself into something that he does not know how to get out of? He now has the Foreign Secretary, wherever he is, passionately in favour of proportional representation, the Leader of the House passionately against it, and himself passionately concerned to avoid answering the question, not knowing whether to betray the Liberal party or the Labour party. He has got himself into an indecisive position, like the late—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister has become as indecisive as the late Lord Wilson, who also had a faithful dog called Paddy, although not on this particular subject. On 11 February 1997, he said in the Financial Times:
We have made it clear all the way through that we are committed to a referendum and we are committed to it as part of our programme for the next Parliament".
Does that apply—yes or no?

The Prime Minister: As indeed I said a few days ago, we have always envisaged holding a referendum this Parliament, but we have also said that we shall wait for the Jenkins commission, to see what precise system of voting change it proposes. I should have thought that it was sensible to wait for the Jenkins commission to report before stating a view on it.

Mr. Hague: How is it that a commitment in the Labour party manifesto depends on the writings of the former leader of the Social Democratic party; and that the Prime

Minister now envisages keeping a promise, but will wait to see whether he is going to do so? [Interruption.] Even he is laughing at the silliness of his own answers.
Is it not time the right hon. Gentleman stopped blundering into constitutional upheavals without knowing what they will lead to, and are there not higher priorities for the Government, with jobs being lost every day and with hospitals facing a crisis this winter? These are the real people's priorities. Should he not be dealing with them instead of trying to gerrymander a system that has served our country well?

The Prime Minister: First, we have made it clear that it is sensible to wait for the Jenkins commission to report, because obviously, the system that Lord Jenkins proposes will be relevant in determining the position of the Government and the referendum.
As for the people's priorities, since the Government came to power we have reduced the unemployment that we inherited from the Conservatives. There are now 400,000 extra jobs, and 100,000 children are being taught in classes whose size has been reduced since the Conservatives were in government. Under the present Government, after years of lengthening waiting lists, waiting lists are shortening. Under the Labour Government, thanks to the new deal, 140,000 young people are off the dole. That shows this Government addressing the mess inherited from the Conservative Government.

Ms Debra Shipley: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the women in Stourbridge on taking a stand against domestic violence and joining the NSPCC and the police locally tomorrow, at a meeting, to bring attention to the appalling reality of violence in the home? One in 10 women suffered violence in the home last year, and one in four have done so at some time in their lives. Is my right hon. Friend aware that—even worse—in 70 per cent. of cases where the woman was abused, the child was also abused; and that, in 90 per cent. of cases where the woman was abused, the child was in the room or next door? This cannot go on.

The Prime Minister: Yes, domestic violence has been a problem that has probably been going on for a long period, but we are more aware of it today than ever before. I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the police are taking it far more seriously now, and will produce, over the next few months, a plan to try to reduce domestic violence and help its victims.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that loss of life on a substantial scale, starting with children and the elderly, is now only weeks away in Kosovo? [HON. MEMBERS: "Not again."] I am amazed to hear that from the Conservative Benches. Of course it is right that President Milosevic should have responded to the credible threat of the use of force, and that NATO should now preserve that on a hair-trigger. Should not our urgent attention now turn to the pitiful plight of the refugees who are suffering as a result of President Milosevic's brutality? Is not the scale and


urgency of the international effort nowhere near what is necessary to preserve them and prevent a catastrophe yet to come?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is still an awful lot more to do. We have provided £1 million to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for co-ordination and shelter for the people who have been displaced. We have also given extra money to a range of non-governmental organisations. In addition, we are sending our own assessment team to ensure that supplies get to the people who need them.
A few weeks ago there were 50,000 people living outside. That has now been reduced to 10,000, so we are making progress; but I agree that we have to keep the activation order in being so that we can take action at any time if it looks as though Milosevic is not going to comply with the agreement into which he has entered. If he does not comply, we shall remain of the view that we must act, if necessary by military force.

Mr. Ashdown: The fact that the people are coming out of the forest does not mean that their lives will be saved. They are moving to appalling disease, overcrowding and, in many cases, homes that have no roofs and food that has been wasted and exhausted in the past few months. Britain has taken the lead in pressing for stronger action in Kosovo.
Will the Prime Minister now give us an undertaking that Britain will take the lead in pressing for the resources and urgency necessary to resolve the humanitarian problem? In particular, as we have used NATO aircraft to such good effect to persuade President Milosevic to comply, could we not use NATO aircraft to ship in the resources and materials necessary to ensure that those who have suffered from his brutality are able to survive the coming winter?

The Prime Minister: I certainly can give an undertaking that we shall do whatever we can. I am advised at the moment that we do not think that the delivery of humanitarian assistance would be helped by the use of NATO planes, but I understand that additional measures are being taken to try to ensure that daily relief convoys reach the parts of the country that they are currently not reaching. We shall keep the situation closely monitored.
The 40,000 who have come in from the outside have not just been left. They are being provided with the medical and food assistance that they need, but there is an awful lot more to do. I understand that, and we shall keep up the pressure all the way. It is a pity that we did not show the same international will that we are showing now six months ago, when this could have been dealt with far more easily and when we could have managed to get together exactly the right type of international co-operation that we needed. This country was taking a lead throughout that time.

Mr. Derek Foster: Has my right hon. Friend seen the disturbing report in today's issue of The Journal of Newcastle, using figures compiled by the Northern Development Company, that we are losing five manufacturing jobs in the northern region for every one

being created? I therefore welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has forced the issue of jobs and growth to the top of the European agenda, but I urge him to go further and please his friends in the north by working with the French and the Germans to forge a consensus around new Keynesian economic and financial policies.

The Prime Minister: We should do what is sensible for the long-term strength of the economy. There are three essential elements to the economic policy that we have outlined, which I believe to be in the interests of the north as well as of the rest of the country. The first is an end to the disastrous boom and bust of the Conservatives. Interest rates at 15 per cent. for a year or more and manufacturing output falling by 7 per cent. —that is the Conservative record. The first thing is to end that boom and bust by the new fiscal and monetary rules.
The second thing is the new investment that we need, particularly in education, skills and technology—the Conservatives are opposed to it—because that investment raises productivity. The third thing, which has been of particular value in the north-east, is the new deal, which tackles social exclusion. All those measures are opposed by the Conservatives; all of them are in the interests of the north-east economy. We shall have difficult times, but we shall be in a better position to weather those difficult times if we take the right decisions for the long-term strength of the economy.

Sir David Madel: Will the Prime Minister confirm that nobody still requiring medical treatment has been taken off national health service waiting lists?

The Prime Minister: People who are on national health service waiting lists and require medical treatment are dealt with in the normal way. I am not aware of any change at all to that practice.

Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to tell my constituents who live around Wembley stadium about his discussions with the president of FIFA earlier this week? Will he assure us that Mr. Blatter did not leave these shores without being fully aware that England, in its bid to stage the world cup, has some of finest club grounds anywhere in Europe, and that Wembley stadium will be the finest new national stadium anywhere in the world?
Will the Prime Minister confirm that our Government will do everything in their power to ensure that not only the national stadium but all the transport infrastructure necessary for people to get there safely and securely are ready on time, in order that nothing stops football coming home in 2006?

The Prime Minister: Yes. There is a £300 million redevelopment project at Wembley. Wembley will be the finest stadium anywhere in the world. Mr. Blatter made it clear that, although he obviously recognised the strong case for an African country hosting the 2006 world cup, given the right facilities and infrastructure to do so, he also recognised England's very powerful case—with the finest stadiums in the world, massive new investment going into those stadiums and, as he pointed out, England of course being the motherland of football.

Mr. William Hague: Since last week's Question Time, Ernst and Young has predicted


that 500,000 manufacturing jobs will be lost in the next two years and the CBI has said that business optimism is at its lowest for 18 years. Does the Prime Minister still think, "Crisis, what crisis?"

The Prime Minister: I still think, as I said last week, that what is important is to get the issue in balance. Third quarter growth figures just reported show an annual rate of growth of 2.5 per cent. Since this Government came to power, 400,000 net new jobs have been created.
I agree that there will be a slowdown. I agree, too, that we are inevitably affected by what is happening around the world. I should point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the International Monetary Fund and the European Union have all downgraded their growth forecasts for next year. We will be affected by that. The best way of getting through that difficulty is to hold firm to strong fiscal and monetary rules and the additional investment in education and our public services—not to cancel Bank of England independence or that investment, which is his policy; that would simply lead us back to boom and bust.

Mr. Hague: Well, I am glad that the Prime Minister has begun to realise that there is a problem. Business optimism may be at an all-time low, but Government complacency has so far hit an all-time high. A job is being lost every 10 minutes, and the Prime Minister has been inventing a new excuse every two minutes. The CBI has called for a cut in interest rates. We have called for a cut in interest rates. Even the Chief Secretary has been calling for a cut in interest rates. Will the Prime Minister instruct the Chancellor to announce when he comes to the House next week a change in policy sufficient for the Bank of England to cut interest rates by a full 1 per cent.?

The Prime Minister: I assume that we just heard the right hon. Gentleman's policy announcement that he wants us to scrap Bank of England independence. Half the Conservative Members are nodding their heads and the other half shaking them. As I told the right hon. Gentleman last week, and as I repeat today, all international institutions have downgraded their growth forecasts. However, as I also told him last week, a net 400,000 additional jobs have been created. His alternative, cancelling investment in schools and hospitals next year and cancelling Bank of England independence, would be a disaster for the British economy. When his policies were last implemented, interest rates were at 15 per cent. for a year or more and our schools and hospitals did not have the investment that they needed. That may be the right hon. Gentleman's policy to weather these difficulties; it is not ours.

Mr. Hague: Businesses in this country need a change of policy from the Government, not a history lesson from the Prime Minister. I can tell the Prime Minister that there is a serious problem out there, the economy is heading in the wrong direction, and the Government now have limited time to do something about it. Will he now put in place the conditions for lower interest rates, and does he realise that unless he does so he will have been fiddling with the voting system while jobs burn?

The Prime Minister: First, may I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that interest rates are coming down?

Secondly, with the coming slowdown and the world economic situation that I have described to him, our choice is to adopt either the policies that we have adopted or the policies that he advocates. The question therefore is: is scrapping Bank of England independence the right thing for the economy? We say no. We do not have a policy from the Conservatives—or rather, we hear two inconsistent policies at the same time from them.
We believe that in the circumstances that I have described, it is sensible to put extra investment into our schools, our transport, law and order and the health service. What is the right hon. Gentleman's policy? As far as we can find out from his shadow Chancellor, it is to cancel that spending. That is wrong. The third part of our policy is to keep in place the new deal, which is giving young and long-term unemployed people the chance to get into work. The right hon. Gentleman's policy is to cancel that.
Those are the choices. Are those policies—Bank of England independence, strong fiscal and monetary rules, extra investment in our schools and hospitals, and the new deal for the unemployed—the right ones? We say that they are—and we still have not had an answer out of the right hon. Gentleman as to what he proposes.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government remain fully committed to the introduction of the working families tax credit, and that such a policy, alongside the national minimum wage, is crucial to the low-paid in constituencies such as mine? Does my right hon. Friend not find it incredible that at Question Time on Monday last week, the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security advocated cutting that tax credit before we have even introduced it?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has, of course, rightly corrected me. I said that the Opposition had not said what their policies were, but they have made one very specific policy commitment. They have said that their answer to the economic crisis—the Leader of the Opposition looks puzzled; he should check on what his shadow Ministers are saying. The Opposition have now said that they would cancel the working families tax credit.
The vast bulk of that would be family credit for 800,000 families. Working families tax credit will mean that from next October, low-income families, if there is anybody working in the family, will have a minimum income of £180 per week, and they will be able to have an income of £220 per week before paying tax. For some of the poorest income-earning families that will be a £23 a week incentive to get into work. The Conservatives are saying that we should cancel that.
What possible response is it to any economic difficulties to say that the price has to be paid by low-income families who need help to get back into work? Since the right hon. Gentleman has not used up his quota of questions, he should get up and tell us whether he stands by his shadow Minister, or whether he disagrees with him.

Sir Raymond Whitney: Is the Prime Minister aware that when General Pinochet handed over to the democratic government of President Aylwin,


the Chilean people decided to draw a line under their turbulent past? Does he understand that the crass way in which the British Government have handled Mr. Pinochet's latest visit to this country is threatening democratic stability in Chile and damaging British interests?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's question is based on a misunderstanding of what has happened. The judicial process has not involved the Government issuing warrants for arrest. That is done by the Spanish authorities through Interpol to the British magistrates, who take it from there. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's question is misjudged and wrong.

Mr. John McAllion: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at the end of this month, the BBC—through its agent, Television Licensing—will withdraw from hundreds of pensioners in Dundee their entitlement to concessionary television licences because, it says, they no longer qualify following changes to the local council's house letting policy? Does he agree that the question of who is to blame for this matters not at all when set against the disgraceful reality that frail and elderly pensioners—who have done nothing wrong—are now facing a surcharge of £96 which they cannot afford and which they should not be asked to pay?
Will my right hon. Friend use his influence with the BBC to ensure that all existing concessions are preserved; more importantly, will he instruct my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to initiate an immediate review of the dog's breakfast of concessionary television licences so that some sanity and justice for the pensioners can at last be brought to bear on another mess that we inherited from the Tories?

The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend has particular concerns about the way in which the scheme is operating for some of his constituents in Dundee. All Members of Parliament know that the way the concessionary scheme operates is an aching and continual grievance that pensioners feel. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has recently announced that the scheme—including the concessionary television licence—will be reviewed next year by an independent review panel. That will report by the end of July 1999, when we will consult on the proposals and on how the scheme can be improved.
We need to be aware that in proposing changes to the concessionary licence scheme, people will never want to lose money through it; and that if everyone gained the same amount, it could be very expensive. That is why the system needs to be looked at as a whole, and that is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced.

Mr. John Whittingdale: What contacts has the Prime Minister had with Lord Jenkins to discuss the recommendations of his commission for fiddling the voting system?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept in any way what the hon. Gentleman says. I have discussions with Lord Jenkins, as I have with lots of people. However, most people think that it is entirely sensible to proceed as we are so that we can get a proper report on an alternative to

the present system, which people can then discuss. If the Conservatives do not want to be a part of the debate, that is up to them. They opted out of the constitutional debate on Scotland and Wales, but were then forced to accept it. They have opted out of the debate on the House of Lords now. They are wrong—it is sensible to have the debate.

Dr. Doug Naysmith: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it remains the intention of the Government to introduce a Food Standards Agency, despite the rumours and speculations emanating from so-called informed sources?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I can certainly confirm that. The establishment of a Food Standards Agency is a commitment by the Government which we intend to honour and carry out. My hon. Friend will know that we must put our legislative programme together taking account of all the various issues. However, we remain committed to doing it as quickly as possible. We all know the reason why we are having to set up an independent Food Standards Agency: because the party of BSE and E. coli never took the decisions necessary—but we will.

Mr. James Paice: Last month, unemployment—according to the statistics used by the previous Government—rose. [Interruption.] Went down, rather. However, according to the figures that the Government now use, unemployment increased. Which one is right?

The Prime Minister: That question was muddled from beginning to end. On the International Labour Organisation count, there was a marginal increase; on the benefit count, there was a decrease. Since we came to office, there has been a substantial decrease. All I am telling the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues about unemployment is that it is important to get it in balance. New jobs are still being created the whole time. Faced with the world economic downgrading of forecasts of growth, the economic financial crisis and the slow down, the question is: what are the right policies? We believe for example that cancelling the new deal would have a disastrous effect on unemployment.

Mr. Stephen Day: You have said that four times.

The Prime Minister: That is because at some point I hope to get a response from the Opposition and to find out whether they are in favour. I agree that there should be an economic debate and argument, but the Conservative party would be in a better position to conduct that debate and argument if it had some serious policy position of its own; it does not.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the proposal of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to call a meeting in Barnsley on 10 November to discuss the distribution of lottery funds in the former coalmining areas? Records show that we have lost out considerably as regards those funds. The meeting is welcome, but it must be meaningful. Will he impress on the Secretary of State the fact that, following the loss of culture and sporting


facilities and of jobs and job opportunities, there is every justification for the miners and mining communities requesting that meeting; and will he give it his blessing?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I am delighted that the meeting is taking place; of course, it was organised by the Government. My hon. Friend will know that the coalfields task force, which the Government established, said in its report in June that an increased share of lottery proceeds

had a significant party to play in helping to regenerate the coalfield areas. Obviously, we will do what we can to ensure that any lottery moneys that come into those areas help to regenerate them. New deal money, too, will help by giving retraining and re-skilling opportunities to many of those people who have lost their jobs to industrial restructuring. That is an important part of the Government's programme which, as ever, is opposed by the Opposition.

Welfare Reform

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): With permission Madam Speaker, I should like to set out the next phase of the Government's plans to reform the welfare state and to deal with the annual uprating of benefits.
When we came to power, we faced two huge challenges—to raise standards in education and to reform the welfare state. Today, we rise to the challenge of welfare reform. Today, we put words into action.
Welfare reform is essential because many people are poorer than they need be, many are dependent on benefits when they need not be, and others are neglected when they should not be. Our central objective is to provide work for those who can and security for those who cannot. Our plans will be based on our belief in fairness, will give greater help to those with the greatest needs, and will ensure that benefits go only to those who are entitled to them. All reforms will be undertaken after consultation.
The vast majority of people who responded to the principles and success measures that we set out in the Green Paper earlier this year endorsed them, and I am happy to reaffirm them today. I have placed in the Library a copy of the list of respondents. What I announce today will be the first of a series of announcements that will form the basis of legislation during this Parliament, beginning early next year. Legislation will take effect over a number of years, but all existing claimants who are eligible for their benefits when the changes are introduced will be protected.
Today, we are publishing three documents to show how we are putting the principles that we set out into practice. The first is a document that shows what we have done so far on welfare reform—the new deal, child care, the working families tax credit—the principles that guide our reforms and the new measures that we are planning.
The second document sets out our plans for a single gateway, a something-for-something deal for those out of work that will change the culture of the welfare state. The third is a consultation document on our plans to reform disability benefits to give more help to those in greatest need and to tackle the abuses in the current system.
On the benefits uprating, I can announce today the largest ever increase in child benefit. As a result of the uprating, child benefit will rise from next April by £2.95 to £14.40 a week. That represents real security for our children provided by the Government. I can also announce new help for the poorest pensioners in the introduction of a minimum income guarantee. The poorest pensioners will receive a minimum of £75 a week and pensioner couples will receive £116.60. Again, that represents real security provided by the Government for today's pensioners.
Most national insurance benefits will increase in line with the retail prices index—3.2 per cent. Means-tested benefits will generally increase by 2.1 per cent. in the normal way. I have placed in the Vote Office the details of the uprating of benefits.
We have plans for a single gateway to the benefit system for people of working age. When I looked at the way in which the Department of Social Security handed out money, I was amazed to see that people of working

age could receive benefits without even having to turn up for an interview and without being given any help in finding work. That will change.
Through the £195 million for the new deal for disabled people, the £190 million for national introduction of the new deal for lone parents and the first ever national child care strategy, we have created new opportunities for people to work. We are ensuring, through the new minimum wage and the working families tax credit, that work pays.
We believe that, in return, it is reasonable that people of working age—lone parents, the unemployed and people claiming incapacity benefits—should be required to attend an interview to discuss their options for work. There will, of course, be people—such as the terminally ill—for whom an interview would clearly be inappropriate and for whom the rule would not apply.
We are not forcing people into work, but the interviews will give real opportunities to people who have been written off by the system. Our plans will create a fundamental change in culture. People will no longer ask of the system, "What can you do for me?" They will ask, "What can I do to help myself?" We will improve the quality of advice that we give as we learn from the new deal. We will proceed carefully, starting with pilots. The full scheme will be in place in April 2000.
Similarly, in disability benefits, we aim to provide work for those who can, and security for those who cannot. When the severely disabled are not receiving the help that they need, when 1 million disabled people say that they want to work but are not being given the chance, when a quarter of men over 60 are on incapacity benefit because the previous Government used it as a way in which to hide the unemployment figures, we know that the system has to change.
We promised in the Green Paper that disabled people should receive the support that they need to lead a fulfilling life with dignity; we shall keep that promise. The foundation for all that we do is an unshakeable commitment to comprehensive civil rights for disabled people to ensure that those people are respected not only in the workplace but in all areas of life.
We need to do more. Today, I can announce a £30 million programme, extra to the new deal, of new help for disabled people seeking work. We also want to improve disability benefits. Disabled people with the greatest needs are not receiving the support that they need, whereas others are receiving support that they should not. People disabled young in life with no hope of work receive so little through the severe disablement allowance that 70 per cent. of them have to claim income support. Disabled people on low incomes who need day and night care do not receive enough help to meet their extra needs, and young children with little mobility receive no recognition from the system. Meanwhile, claims to disability living allowance are not always supported by medical evidence. Some people have been awarded benefit for life even though they have conditions that are expected to improve.
Today, we set out for consultation proposals to provide more help for the most severely disabled people in greatest need and action to ensure that disability benefits go to the right people. First, we propose, for new claimants, to change the system of support to congenitally disabled people and others disabled young in life so that


they receive greater help. People aged 20 and over can already qualify for incapacity benefit, if they have worked, or for income support. Severe disablement allowance will no longer be available for them.
However, many young people disabled before they were 20 have little hope of work. Today, I can announce that we will give them the biggest ever rise in support, with an extra £25 a week in benefit.
We propose a fundamental reform to incapacity benefit for future claimants only. The benefit is meant to be for people who are unable to work, yet the number of claimants has risen threefold over the past 20 years, at a time when the nation's health has been improving. We are concerned that the benefit is being abused as an enhanced early retirement subsidy.
For future claimants, we will discourage the use of incapacity benefit as an early retirement subsidy. People who have a private pension or health insurance payment of more than £50 will receive less support. Every pound of private income that they have in excess of the £50 limit will reduce their benefit by 50p. We will restore the benefit to its original purpose as an insurance benefit for people who have worked. Too often, it has been abused as a more generous form of support for the long-term unemployed.
We will strengthen the link between work and benefit, and only people who have worked and paid recent contributions before the claim will be eligible for the benefit. We will reform the all work test, so that those who claim benefits have to give evidence of their work prospects. For the first time, we will have information on the work that disabled people can do 
We want to improve the provision for disabled people with the greatest needs. We will provide real security for the poorest disabled people with the highest care costs. Today, I can announce a disability income guarantee that will give £129 a week to a single person and £169 to a couple. The guarantee will be extended to three and four-year-olds so that a couple with one child on income support and disability living allowance with the highest care needs will get at least £199 a week. For the first time, we will also extend the higher rate of disability living allowance mobility component, worth an extra £35 a week to all three and four-year-old severely disabled children.
The benefit integrity project, which we inherited from the previous Government, has failed. It caused a lot of anxiety to disabled people, so we will cancel it, and in its place we will introduce a new system for reviewing claims to disability living allowance and attendance allowance that is both fairer and more sensitive. It will work in the interests of disabled people.
The changes will generate £ ¾ billion in long-term savings; but even with the changes, real-terms spending on disabled people will continue to rise in the long run. The reforms do not affect the comprehensive spending review plans announced by my right hon. Friend Chancellor in July. It is quite right that, as our society gets wealthier, the amount that we spend on the most vulnerable should increase; but benefits must go to those for whom they were intended. We must give the most help to those in the greatest need, and the system must be affordable.
The structural changes that I have announced today will deliver significant savings over the longer run, but they will do so by ensuring that the greatest help goes to those in the greatest need and that benefits go only to those for whom they were intended. We want to provide work for those who can, and security for those who cannot.
Today, for the first time, we will provide real security, with record levels of child benefit. The changes are good news for those out of work, who will be given better advice and opportunities to work, but bad news for those who abuse the system or try to claim benefits to which they are not entitled.
Today, we are showing our determination to modernise the welfare state and reshape it for today's world, so that it provides opportunities for all those who want to work, and delivers security to all those who need it. I commend the proposals to the House.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in letting me see his statement earlier, albeit only a little earlier. I would probably have learnt more by simply reading the Evening Standard, which carried a full, almost blow-by-blow account of the statement before he stood up to make it. That is yet another example of how the Government want to manipulate the House and use it to their own ends.
The Secretary of State said that he would rise to the challenge. I seem to recall that, with the previous big Green Paper on welfare reform, we had exactly the same rising to the challenge. There seems to be an awful lot of rising to the challenge but far too few challenges are really being met en route.
The Secretary of State was very long on a series of issues that seem, in many senses, to be relaunched, reissued and rehashed. Minimum income for pensioners has already been stated at least twice, and perhaps even three times, and the same applies to the uprating of child benefit.
Do the Government have plans to tax child benefit, as endless leaks in the newspapers suggest? Perhaps he would like to answer that question once and for all.
There have also been further leaks to the press about taking away child benefit from parents of 16 to 18-year-olds and giving it directly to those in higher education. Will he perhaps answer that once and for all?
There are, of course, important points on the disabled and on the gateway to benefit, which I will come to, but the reality is that, as usual, little has changed. There has been a lot of relaunching of clichés and a reannouncement of stuff from the past.
I turn to the main announcements that the Secretary of State has made today in his documents. On "The Gateway to Work", clearly, the Government have now decided that everyone should be eligible for work at least at the interview stage. The Opposition are not, in principle, opposed to that concept. [Interruption.]
The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), should be very careful because it was she who said:
There is an authoritarian behavioural requirement for jobseekers".


She said that the jobseeker's allowance was
illiberal in what is meant to be a democratic state."—[Official Report, 10 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 109.]
Either she has changed her mind about jobseeker's allowance or become illiberal, authoritarian and anti-democratic.
When we introduced jobseeker's allowance, we were attacked by the then Opposition, who are now the Government. I assume that they now accept the great success of jobseeker's allowance and intend to apply it further, but serious questions remain with regard to the concept of the gateway. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would answer some of them.
Paragraph 10, page 10 of "Principles into Practice" mentions that certain categories of people, such as the recently bereaved, single parents with very young children and others, will not be required to take part in immediate interviews for work. What does "immediate" mean? Exactly how long a gap does the Secretary of State envisage there being? Who will adjudicate as to who fits into those categories? The statements are very vague. He must have some idea in his own mind of exactly what that means. [Interruption.] Labour Members laugh because they like the general, but do not like the particular.
The Secretary of State made a bold statement on dependency and wishing to reduce it, but the more the Government move towards means testing, the greater dependency there will be. For example, in paragraph 21, page 16 of "Principles into Practice", there is a clear signal that the Government will apply a means test on occupational and personal pensions; for example, incapacity benefit is reduced for new claimants. Exactly how does that fit in with the right hon. Gentleman's reduction of dependency?
Does not the Government's statement about reducing dependency ring hollow given the working families tax credit that they are to introduce, which will massively, by their own statement, increase dependency? Does the Secretary of State not agree that, on the Treasury's statement, even someone on £38,000 a year will be moved into dependency directly as a result of that programme, so will the Government now admit that that they are beginning to attack the contributory principle and that what they intend to do—[Interruption.] As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just said, they intend ultimately to abolish it—those were his words just now on the Bench. He intends to get rid of it, so will the Government now admit that that is what they are engaged in.
The Government refer in the document to the need to pilot some of the programmes. Does the Secretary of State admit that his lone-parent pilot programme was a clear disaster? The Government included no control pilots in it. Will he now accept that, unless he includes control groups in pilot projects, those, too, will be a disaster, just like his nationwide launch of the lone-parent pilot?
Serious questions need to be addressed. Will the Secretary of State specify what fall-out rate from the return to work is acceptable in these programmes and what the targets are for benefit savings? Will he also specify what the target is for the number that the Government intend to get back into work?
Finally, in "Principles into Practice", the Government state:
at the point of change, no one loses from the reforms we are making.

What does that mean? Clearly, there will be losers. What does the Secretary of State actually mean? [Interruption.] Labour Members laugh again—the particular and the general, the same old rule. Nice clear statements are what are required. Surely, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer those questions and many others, it will become apparent over the next few weeks and months that he has missed another opportunity.
For the most part, the announcement is a rehashing of what has been and gone, a statement of the general, and of yet more consultation documents. There has not been much decision making and serious decisions have yet to be made—yet again, a missed opportunity.

Mr. Darling: The only missed opportunity is the hon. Gentleman's. I listened carefully to him, but I still do not know whether he is for or against anything that we have proposed. In the five minutes at his disposal, he raised several points of detail, but on the points of principle—our reform of incapacity benefit and our proposals to get people into work, to encourage more people to take opportunities available to them and to help those who are most severely disabled—he had not a single word to say.
Let me deal with the points that the hon. Gentleman did make, such as they were. As I understand it, the Conservative party is now committed to getting rid of the working families tax credit.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Not true.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman says, "Not true." He said so at the last Question Time. That is the single policy that the Opposition have set out. The working families tax credit ensures that work will pay. For many people who are trapped on benefits, one of the problems of the past was that work did not pay. The working families tax credit will get more help to people and will encourage them to get off benefit and into work.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the new deal for lone parents, complaining that we should have done more piloting or had more control groups. That is a bit rich coming from a party that is against the whole thing. The Conservatives believe that the new deal is wrong, and they would leave people confined to benefits. I strongly believe that the new deal is a success. Nine out of 10 lone parents who have been interviewed have joined the new deal, which shows how much they wanted to take the opportunities available.
The hon. Gentleman asked about a couple of points of detail. First, we have made it clear that we must be sensitive when we introduce interviews that will be conditional on someone receiving benefit. It would be inappropriate to hold them immediately after a bereavement, and I am glad to have the opportunity to say so. I will happily discuss with the hon. Gentleman the length of time that he might think reasonable. However, we are rightly saying that we will be sensitive about how we handle these matters. Our objectives are to help people and to give them opportunities denied for years by the Conservatives.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked what we meant when we said that existing beneficiaries would not be affected. We mean just that. Our radical proposals are for reform in the future. We are ensuring that we can meet the needs of the welfare state not for two or three years


but for two or three decades. We are reforming the welfare state: the Conservative party did absolutely nothing about it for 18 years.

Mr. Terry Rooney: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and particularly for his proposals about the single gateway, which will be a great improvement. Will he say more on his proposals for the abysmal failure that is the all work test, which clearly divided people between those picked to work or not to work, with nothing in between? That has imperilled many people. Can my right hon. Friend say how it might develop in the coming months?

Mr. Darling: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. The all work test has not been successful. It tends to consign people who pass it to complete inactivity. Everyone knows that people who have an incapacity may be capable of doing some work. I am anxious to assess clearly whether someone is eligible for incapacity benefit because of a medical condition, but I am anxious, too, to assess people using a new employability test that will ask what they can do and concentrate on their capacity rather than their incapacity. In the past, far too many people have been simply written off. Many people on incapacity benefit could work, and they want to work.

Mr. Mark Oaten: The Liberal Democrats welcome several of the measures, notably the decision—for which we have long argued—to abolish the failed benefit integrity project. It is regrettable that that abolition has taken 18 months, but it is none the less welcome. Can the Secretary of State confirm that, from tomorrow, no tests will be associated with the project, and that no one else will lose benefits because of it? Can he tell us what penalties he is considering for those who fail to turn up for compulsory interviews? Will any benefits be lost? On means testing of incapacity benefit for those who have pensions, would the right hon. Gentleman not have been wiser to wait until the Government had resolved the issue of second pensions, as his measures clearly set a possible disincentive to saving? Does his package means more or less money for disabled people?

Mr. Darling: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's points in reverse order. Yes, the package clearly means more money for disabled people. The minimum guarantee, extending mobility allowance to three and four-year-olds and the new allowance for those disabled congenitally or when they were under 20 clearly represent additional help that was not otherwise available. On pensions, the important point is that, 50 years ago, very few people had insurance or occupational pension cover. Incapacity benefit was designed when such cover was not available. If we were starting from scratch—it is essential to take that approach in considering fundamental reform—we would ask whether it was sensible to pay money to some people who might have good occupational pension cover without taking that cover into account. With the £50 disregard, the first £50 is ignored, and after that there is a 50 per cent. taper, so people with an occupational pension or insurance cover will always be better off.
I do not agree that it might have better to wait for a further announcement. Part of the problem with welfare reform is that it is tempting to wait for the next

announcement because one thus avoids taking all sorts of difficult decisions. At some stage, one must press on with firm proposals.
The hon. Gentleman asked about interviews. He knows that, to receive benefit, people have to sign up to a host of conditions. An important one will be that someone has to agree to come to an interview. I stress that there is a world of difference between that and telling people that they must take a job. We say that in the new deal for the young unemployed but not for lone parents. Nine out of 10 lone parents who came for interview liked what they saw and joined the new deal.
On the benefit integrity project, I cannot give a commitment that everything will change tomorrow morning. We have already made changes to remove some of its worst excesses which caused difficulties in the summer last year. I want to ensure that we have a system that gets benefits right from the start. Almost one third of disability living allowance claimants did not have apparent evidence to justify the award. That situation cannot continue. Equally, the trouble with the benefit integrity project is that it has removed people from benefit who, on any objective view, should not have been put in that unhappy position. That is why I want to move ahead with reform to carry on improving things and remove the difficulties. All my proposals will be subject to consultation. Assuming that the consultation agrees with what we propose, we will press ahead with legislation and make the necessary changes at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Frank Field: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement, particularly those aspects which will increase help to the most disabled people, and the extension of help to younger children. I hope that I will be able to welcome the changes on the single gateway when I read more fully the proposals in his consultation document. On the consultation on changes to disability benefits, what will happen to the Government's proposals if most of the people and organisations consulted are against them? Of those people who will suffer cuts in their benefit as a result of the changes made today, will he say what proportion—[Interruption.] Well, cuts compared with what they would have gained had the current benefits remained in place. Of that group, what proportion does the Secretary of State expect to be successful in getting jobs?

Mr. Darling: I thank my right hon. Friend for his general support and acknowledge his work in the Department earlier this year, particularly in preparing the Green Paper, on whose principles and success measures we are building. The point of consultation is to listen and find out what people have to say about our proposals. Over the next few weeks, I expect that there will be points on which people will agree and others with which they disagree or on which they have better suggestions. That is the nature of consultation.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned people who are no longer entitled to benefit as a result of the changes we have made. Those are changes intended to return incapacity benefit to its original intention in relation to contributions and which relate to our proposals for a better share between individual contributions and those from the Government. I believe that the changes are absolutely right in principle, but I repeat that no one receiving benefit under the present system will be affected. It would be


wrong to disturb arrangements that have been made and which have been proceeded with in good faith. These are all changes based on the future.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about work. I believe strongly that everything the Government are doing is essential in the modern labour market, where people will have several jobs between starting out and retiring. We must ask ourselves at every stage what the Government can do to keep people in touch with the labour market, which is a fundamental part of the new deal.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I listened carefully to the Secretary of State but even though he said that he is keen to keep people in touch with the labour market, I heard nothing about the growing number of people who are occupied in or seeking part-time work. One of the biggest industries in my constituency is fruit growing, which depends heavily on people who are prepared to pick as part-time workers. If the reforms are to mean anything, the transition from part-time to full-time work—or making available part-time work on terms that make it attractive—must be recognised as an indispensable part of a labour market that is increasingly dependent on people working part time.

Mr. Darling: Inasmuch as I understood the hon. Gentleman' s point, part-time work is a matter of choice for some, but I fully accept that for many people it is the only option. What we have to do and what we are doing at every stage of the labour market reform is to make it more likely that someone can be kept in touch with the labour market to find full-time or part-time work as they think appropriate.

Ms Gisela Stuart: I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State announce the cancellation of the benefit integrity project. When the Social Security Committee considered that issue in the summer we nearly recommended cancellation, but then decided not to. We felt that there was a difficulty with the claims that had been assessed and that a significant number of claims were outstanding based on inadequate information. Can the Secretary of State can tell me how many such cases are outstanding and what the transitional provisions are for that group and for the new arrangements that will be put in place?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend has raised a point that was raised by the Liberal Democrats. I shall make the position clear. The proposals I have announced this afternoon, including that in relation to the benefit integrity project, are the subject of a consultation paper that is available in the Vote Office now. Assuming the consultation succeeds and that people generally agree with what we are doing, we will proceed with the necessary changes either legislatively or, if possible, administratively.
The benefit integrity project is continuing now, but, as I explained earlier, we have removed some of the worst excesses. Cases in the pipeline will still be looked at because it is important to ascertain two things. First, we must ensure that we are getting the right benefit to those who are entitled to it and, secondly, where there is no evidence to justify it, we must do something about it. That process will continue.
I want to ensure that, not just in this area but across the benefits system, the DSS and the Benefits Agency spend more time getting decisions right in the first place rather than making a wrong decision and having to disturb an award that has been made, which is obviously difficult for the person receiving it. No one should be in any doubt that the process we have started by examining the benefit integrity project and disability living allowance and attendance allowance claims will continue. We will remove the aspects causing the most problems, but we will not return to the situation that existed before April 1997 when absolutely nothing was being done about the fact that far too many people were getting the wrong benefit.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Secretary of State may recall that, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said, in May, the Social Security Committee recommended that the benefit integrity project should be put on probation for six months. I am sure that it is a matter of delight for the House that the Secretary of State has put it to death this afternoon. That is welcome. The right hon. Gentleman rightly made great play of the fact that existing benefits and payments would be protected and that changes to benefit levels would only come in the future. Does that apply to disability living allowance claimants who currently hold life awards?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. He will know, as many hon. Members do, that the concept of a life award within the DSS is misleading. Although we have called them life awards, they are not life awards. We have always had the right to review someone's entitlement to an award. I want to change that situation so that people know whether they will receive a benefit for a long period. It is also important that we constantly review people's entitlement so that, if their condition gets worse, we take account of that and perhaps pay them more, and if it gets better, we take account of that as well.
In the minority of cases in which the condition will not improve, it is important that we get away from a situation in which we give awards and then abandon the person, who may well be receiving the wrong amount of help.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: When he refers to keeping in touch with the labour market, is my right hon. Friend aware that in some areas in Britain, especially the coalfields, where all the pits were closed in the miserable years of the Tory Government, there is not much of a labour market? Will the people who do the interviewing be sensitive to the fact that there are not many jobs available?
Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that many disabled people work in Remploy factories, which are running into serious trouble in respect of orders, principally from the Ministry of Defence and so on? If my right hon. Friend wants those disabled people to continue in work, it would be helpful—and it would be symbolic for him as he carries through this reform—to ensure that disabled people do not lose their jobs in Remploy factories. Some steps will have to be taken


in that regard. It would not be a bad idea if my right hon. Friend doubled the number of Remploy factories for the increasing number of disabled people who want to work.

Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities have announced today extra help to enable disabled people to get into work. That will be welcome.
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the coalfields. The Government's objective is to create the right economic conditions to ensure sustainable economic growth everywhere, including the coalfields. The difference between what happens under this Government and what happened under the previous Government is that as a result of the new deal, rather than abandoning people once they are unemployed, we do everything that we can to put them back in touch with the labour market. I fully accept the point that my hon. Friend makes; that in large parts of South Yorkshire, for example, which were devastated in the late 1980s, we need to do more to help right across the board. We need to ensure not only that someone has the right skills and training but that opportunities exist. That is why the Government's approach to welfare reform and economic reform is that the two go very much hand in hand.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: Can the Secretary of State be a little more clear about what he has in mind with regard to the single gateway and his changes to incapacity benefit? Does he envisage one level of benefit for people who are on incapacity benefit now and people claiming income support or unemployment benefit? Will there be one level of benefit for different types of claimant, as there is in other countries that have introduced similar arrangements to those which the right hon. Gentleman proposes?
With regard to the all work test, are we to assume that that test will apply to those people at present on incapacity benefit? Even though they may have problems with mobility, they can nevertheless be deemed able to do a desk job and required to do some such work. Although they have a disability, they can still be part of the work force.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Lady is right. There are many people on incapacity benefit who could do some work. It may be different from what they have done in the past, and the object of a new employability test is to assess what they can do. There is nothing in the all work test that forces anyone to do anything. It is designed to provide help to enable people to work if they are able to do that.
The hon. Lady asked about the single gateway and a single benefit. There is nothing in what I said this afternoon that suggests a single benefit. We have a number of benefits, as the hon. Lady will know. The whole point about the single gateway is that, for the first time, people will be treated as individuals, rather than as part of a category. We want to ensure that all those of working age who enter the benefits system are asked what

we can do to help them get back into work, such as improve their training, rather than simply being handed a benefit cheque.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement about benefits for people with disabilities, especially because of the number of young people who will now be involved. However, some of my constituents are concerned about the merit of some of the medical examinations: they feel that they are very short and not of a particularly high quality. Can that be tested? Secondly, on the question of appeals, which I know are not a matter for my right hon. Friend and which must, of necessity, be independent, some of my constituents are disappointed that they have to wait for 12 to 14 months, which is a very long time. Is there some general action that my right hon. Friend could take, without intervening in individual cases?

Mr. Darling: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising two points with which I want to deal, the first of which involves the all work test and the nature of that test. He is right to say that a number of people have expressed concern about the nature of the test. One of the things that we have done since coming to power is to impose much higher standards on the people carrying out the tests, so that we can be satisfied that they are being conducted properly. Since being appointed, I have noticed a number of areas in which we can take further action to improve the standard of the tests.
My right hon. Friend also raised an extremely important point about appeals. To be frank, the current delay in dealing with appeals is unacceptable. However, there is good news on that front: we have set up a new appeals agency to take over from the independent tribunal service. Under the Social Security Act 1998, I acquired powers, not to make decisions—that would be quite wrong—but to lay down standards and, in particular, time limits within which appeals should be heard. I intend to pursue that vigorously.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The Secretary of State mentioned uprating child benefit, but I am sure that he would be the first to accept that middle England, which he values so highly, would thoroughly resent any uprating of child benefit being wiped out by taxation, once joint income had reached higher tax thresholds. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer this simple question: does he accept that it is important to retain the principle of independent taxation when considering how and whether to tax child benefit?

Mr. Darling: Matters of taxation, independent or otherwise, are for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Gentleman highlights yet again the problem of Opposition Members, which is that half of them call for more spending and half for less.
On the subject of child benefit, I forgot to answer a point raised by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), when he accused us of hiding our tax intentions. We did not hide them. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, standing at the Dispatch Box last year, made it quite clear when we introduced the increase in child benefit that he would consider whether or not there was a case for taxing child benefit—at least in respect of


higher-rate taxpayers. That remains our position and nothing has changed. I am glad that the Opposition are now at least welcoming the fact that we have given the biggest ever increase in child benefit, which will be of major help to every single child in this country.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: My right hon. Friend has said that all those in receipt of benefit, including lone parents, will be required to attend an interview. Will that interview be compulsory? If they do not attend, will there be any penalties imposed?

Mr. Darling: Let me explain. The conditions in respect of the new deal—that lone parents can attend—remain exactly the same; in other words, there is no compulsion. Lone parents will receive a letter inviting them to come in for an interview, once their child passes the age of five.
We are proposing a slightly different system—a new single gateway to the benefits system. It will be piloted for the first two years before being fully implemented, so that we can see how it works in practice and improve on it. We are saying to lone parents, who are not compelled to take work, that there is a world of difference between that and asking them to come in for an interview to discover what help might be available to them. Because nine out of 10 lone parents who come in for interview under the present scheme have joined the new deal, the matter is worth pursuing.
On my hon. Friend's last point, assuming that we pass the pilot stage and obtain the legislative power to do so, it is right to say to everybody that, as a condition of receiving benefit, coming along for an interview to do no more than find out what options might be available is not exactly unreasonable.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The Secretary of State said that the benefit integrity project is wrong, unfair, insensitive and should be scrapped. I do not think that there is one hon. Member with a constituency case load who could possibly disagree with that judgment. Nevertheless, if the project is to be continued for the time being, will not some people continue to lose their benefit unfairly? Will they be able to apply under the new criteria? If they are successful in doing so, will their lost benefit be restored to them?

Mr. Darling: If someone's benefit is restored on appeal, they will get their benefit back. The hon. Gentleman has to accept that, currently, the problem is that some people are receiving the wrong amount of disability living allowance. Some people are receiving DLA when the medical evidence for granting it is not immediately obvious, which—in any system—is clearly unsatisfactory. People need to have confidence in the system. Moreover, if we ensure that we are paying benefit to the right people, we could do more to help them. Other people are not receiving the right amount—they are not receiving enough—because their condition has worsened or was wrongly assessed initially.
I have made it clear that the benefit integrity project has to go because too many of its aspects are flawed. We have already taken a series of measures to remove some of the worst effects, and we have removed many of the problems—particularly those that occurred last year—of which hon. Members will be well aware. I want to replace

the project with a system that ensures that we get the benefit right the first time. I want to ensure also that, when we review benefits, we review them to the benefit of disabled people, so that we can tell them, "If your condition has worsened, we can take account of that. If your condition has improved, we have to take account of that, too."
We want to get the system right the first time. We have inherited a situation in which, across the board, far too many decisions taken by the Benefits Agency have not been right the first time. That situation has to change.

Audrey Wise: May I welcome the extension of mobility help to three and four-year-old children, which I believe is overdue? May I also, however, express my concern about compulsory interviews for lone parents? If the interviews are intended to be helpful, why is it necessary to make them compulsory? Will my right hon. Friend confirm, quite categorically, that a compulsory interview is not the precursor of compelling lone parents either to seek or to accept employment, but that they will continue to be able to decide for themselves what is best for their children?

Mr. Darling: On the last point, nothing has changed from the situation today. I assure my hon. Friend that we have always made it clear that we are not compelling lone parents to go to work because of their particular circumstances. That position remains in future exactly the same as it is today.
My hon. Friend asked about pilots and why it is reasonable to ask people, right across the board, to come in. Let me give her one reason. On Monday, when I launched the lone parents' new deal nationally, I spoke to one lone parent who told me that she had ignored the first couple of letters she received because she thought that it was just another scheme. She turned up after receiving the third letter, was pleasantly surprised and is now about to complete training and go into work.
My point is that more people need to know what the Government are doing to help. There is a world of difference between coming in for an interview and being told what is on offer, and compelling someone to take a job—which, in the case of lone parents, we are not going to do.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I share the welcome for some aspects of the statement, which other hon. Members have already mentioned. Will some of the forms be revised so that people can more simply find their way through them? Although it has been stated that the all work test should not be a snapshot at a specific time, people are regularly refused benefit because they are experiencing a degree of remission at a specific time. I know of one case, for example, in which a medical examiner not only rejected a person's claim for benefit but said that he was unfit to take a job as a civil servant. There is a need to fine-tune the system both upwards and downwards.

Mr. Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. I made it clear in reply to an earlier question that I do think that the all work test needs to be refined. I certainly agree that the test would not be a success if a snapshot were taken on a particular day when a person's condition might be much worse or better than usual. It is important to get the whole picture.
The hon. Gentleman makes an exceptionally good point about the forms. I am pleased to be able to tell him that we are already on the case, doing what we can to simplify them. We are already running some pilot projects which will make it much easier to claim benefit. We are using modern technology and simplified forms, and bringing forms together so that people do not have to fill in three or four to apply for benefit. The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly good case, and I hope to be able to come back to the House in the not too distant future with some good news on that issue.

Mr. Roger Berry: I warmly welcome most of my right hon. Friend's statement. Does he acknowledge that, over the past three years, the number of people claiming incapacity benefit has declined significantly, not least because of the restrictions on eligibility introduced by the previous Government? Will he reassure the House that he has no plans to extend the qualifying period for incapacity benefit?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend asks about incapacity benefit and the qualifying period. I said that we are restoring incapacity benefit to its original purpose so that there is a more recent link between work and receiving that benefit. He also asked whether we want to make any further changes. I am not sure whether he has the consultation document yet, but the changes are fully set out in it. I think that I can reassure him on that point.

Mr. Steve Webb: I am sure that the Secretary of State would not have wanted to give a misleading impression, so will he confirm that when he said that pensioners would be guaranteed an income of £75 a week, he was unaware of the 500,000 pensioners with savings who will have to live on less than £75 a week?

Mr. Darling: It is perfectly true that there are pensioners with savings—some have modest savings, while some have a great deal. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would stop carping about the minimum income guarantee. For the first time, we are giving more help to the poorest pensioners—more than they would ever have got under the previous Government. The Liberal Democrats should welcome that, not carp about it.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: In view of the need to ingrain in our social security practice some sense of balance between rights and responsibilities, most people would think it perfectly fair and reasonable that when people exercise their right to claim benefit, they should attend an interview to talk about their duty to seek work. Given the emphasis on improving the interface between social security and employment, is the logic that one day at local level we shall have integrated employment and benefit offices? Are the Government considering that for people of working age?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend may be aware that that is something in which the Government are extremely interested and which we intend to pursue more fully. The new deal attempts to do just that—to bring together the Employment Service and the social security system.

The single gateway is an acceptance of the fact that the public, quite rightly, do not distinguish between the different Departments of Government. They expect the Government to provide help. As my hon. Friend rightly says, if the Government are to provide help, it is the responsibility of those seeking benefit or other support at least to find out what options are available. I for one will be happy to defend that proposal because it is entirely right and based on the correct principle.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will the Secretary of State please clarify whether people who are currently receiving incapacity benefit will be called for an employability test, or will it be only new claimants? Also, will pensioners who have a minimum income guarantee continue to have access to housing benefit, council tax benefit and income support?

Mr. Darling: As I made clear, the single gateway system will be piloted, but we want to ensure that people who are not in full-time work and who are receiving benefits attend an interview. Where that is inappropriate, perhaps because of care responsibilities, we need to be sensitive. I do not for one moment belittle the hon. Lady's point. There are many details on which we want to consult, but I believe that the principle that someone should attend an interview to find out what help might be available at an appropriate time remains the right one.

Mr. Chris Pond: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Is he aware that, in my constituency—as in many others—we have been carrying out a consultation process with disabled people about the way in which the current system operates? I assure him that those groups to which I have spoken will welcome his statement—especially the announcement about the abolition of the benefit integrity project. However, can he confirm that although, in two thirds of disability living allowance cases, there is no information to justify the amount of the award being paid, that is an indication, not of fraud, or even of overpayment, but simply of the non-availability of that information? Will he reassure people on DLA that there is no intention—as there was under the BIP—perhaps to hound them for potential fraud?

Mr. Darling: It is very important to distinguish between those people who defraud the social security system—which we all know happens—and those people who, through no fault of their own, have ended up with the wrong benefit. Since the week when I arrived in the Department in July, I have been worried that the systems that we have inherited are far from satisfactory. They need to be reformed to ensure that we get benefits right. It is far better that we ensure that a person receives the right benefit from the start, because otherwise, by the time the system catches up, they have proceeded so far down the road that it causes all sorts of difficulties when we try to put matters right. We are determined, therefore, to place far more emphasis than there has ever been on getting decisions right first time.

Mr. Quentin Davies: The Secretary of State studiously—many people will think, disingenuously—avoided the phrases "means test" or "benefit reduction". Does the right hon. Gentleman agree,


however, that, if incapacity benefit above £50 is means tested in future, first, a lot of future claimants will lose incapacity benefit to which they were entitled, and for which they believe they have paid through their national insurance contributions; and, secondly, the Government will once again have delivered a major blow to the principle of the national insurance system? We get a blow to the system about once a month. Why do not the Government come clean and say that their real agenda is to erode the contributory principle and the national insurance system and, ultimately, to destroy it altogether?

Mr. Darling: Although, to be fair, I believe that for much of the past 18 years the hon. Gentleman was in opposition to the Conservative Front-Bench team, he might want to reflect on the fact that the national insurance system and entitlement to contributory benefits were changed on the odd occasion during those 18 years. I believe that people realise that national insurance funds the system on a pay-as-you-go basis. It is not a fully funded system, so it is rather different from, let us say, an insurance scheme.
On the incapacity benefit changes, I believe that, in this day and age, when far more people have cover—sometimes substantial—it is entirely right that the risk should be shared fairly. The Conservatives may have pledged themselves to oppose that—which is curious given that, although they are always saying that they want to reform the welfare state, they have absolutely nothing to say on the particulars.
I believe that the change is entirely fair, and I have made it absolutely clear that the proposals are for future beneficiaries only. People on existing incapacity benefit will not be affected. The hon. Gentleman is therefore wrong on both counts. I am only sorry that at no time in the last hour have we heard a word from Conservative Members as to what they would do to reform and improve the benefit system.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. That concludes the statement. We must move on.

Senator Pinochet

Sir Norman Fowler: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There has been a very significant development in the case of Senator Pinochet. The divisional court has now held that he is entitled to immunity from prosecution. The democratic Government of Chile have also made it clear that they want these proceedings to come to an end. In view of those developments, may I ask that the Home Secretary come to the House without further delay—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is here."] Right. I hope that, without any further delay, he will make a full statement on the Government's position. This has dragged on day after day, and we have not had a statement. It is crucial that would should have one. The issue is not answered by the Home Secretary sitting there without saying anything.

Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Many of us are very concerned that the court decision could result in Pinochet leaving the country without a debate in this House. I recognise that what has happened so far has been strictly in accordance with the rules. The Home Secretary was not in a position to make a statement, because the matter was sub judice. However, should there be any possibility of that former murderous dictator leaving the country, the House should be able to have a debate first.
I have noted the ruling that you gave yesterday, Madam Speaker. However, you will have noted that there have, rightly, been endless articles in the media about Pinochet and the terrible crimes that were committed when he was a dictator. It would be most unfortunate, to say the least, if, because of court rulings, Pinochet were able to leave the country on Thursday, for example, without the House being able to debate the subject. I hope that you will give that careful consideration. I make no apology for my strength of feeling and that of my hon. Friends about that murderous criminal.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you feel that, rather than the Home Secretary being asked to make a statement, it would be helpful if the Attorney-General came to the House to give us some guidance on the international implications of what has happened. Although he has made decisions in that area in a different capacity, what has happened affects our understanding of international law and the circumstances in which people can be prosecuted in one country or another, and kept in a country for that purpose.

Ann Clwyd: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday you ruled that early-day motions on the issue should be suspended. There is strong feeling in the House, and many of my hon. Friends wanted to add their names to those motions. I take it that, as the court has made a ruling and no appeal has yet been lodged, it is possible for the suspension to be lifted. I find the court ruling extraordinary. Is it a clear signal for heads of state such as Saddam Hussein that they can come here and have tea with Margaret Thatcher in future?

Madam Speaker: As the House is aware, I have no authority as far as Government statements are concerned.


Ministers make statements when they consider it appropriate. As the House also knows, the procedures under extradition law and the circumstances of the case involving Senator Pinochet are very complex. I understand that an appeal is pending, but I have had no time to ascertain what the legal position is now, having been in the Chair since 2.30 pm. Until I have had an opportunity to reflect on the situation, I propose to regard the case as still sub judice.
I remind the House, as I did yesterday, that I do not make rules as I go along; I uphold the rules of the House. As soon as it is possible to do so, early-day motions that have been withdrawn from the Order Paper will be returned to it, and hon. Members will be able to question Ministers.

Prostitutes' Advertisements (Public Telephone Boxes)

Ms Karen Buck: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it an offence to place advertisements for prostitutes in public telephone boxes; and for connected purposes

The problem of carding is localised, but severe. Corners of central London in or bordering my constituency are awash with cards, as, I understand, are parts of Brighton, Southampton, Birmingham and some other cities. To give the House an idea of the scale of the problem, British Telecom removes an average of 14 million cards each year. Ten million cards were removed in Westminster during one monitoring period between August 1996 and January 1998. One thousand boxes are carded regularly. Some boxes can display 80 cards at one time. At the absolute minimum, the cards create an appalling litter problem. More seriously, cards are becoming increasingly graphic and sexually explicit, with photographic illustrations and descriptions of services offered that stretch the imaginations even of hon. Members, who are notoriously broad-minded.
I am not a prude; I find prudery tedious. I do not want to live in a sanitised, Disneyland-type city—however pleasant Disneyland may be to visit with one's children. But nor do I want to be confronted against my will with pornography. It is not fair effectively to prevent women and children from using telephone boxes because they feel threatened by the sleazy environment that the cards create. I do not see why a child calling home on his way from school should be confronted with advertisements for golden rain, bondage and foot fetishism.
There are two ways of dealing with such cards: a comprehensive call-barring scheme, and the introduction of a criminal offence of carding, as I propose. I would greatly welcome a comprehensive call-barring scheme. I congratulate BT on its voluntary scheme, and investment in cleaning up telephone boxes. Other telephone operating companies need to come on board quickly, and the Office of Telecommunications should move swiftly to permit outgoing call-barring, blocking calls from call boxes to the telephone numbers advertised on the cards.
My Bill creates a criminal offence of carding. That will help to reduce the number of carders, since penalties can be stiffer than the average fine of £200, which is little more to carders than an occupational hazard. A new criminal offence would replace the time-consuming, cumbersome and expensive process whereby the local authority or the police must take out injunctions—even then, only after five prosecutions—by using the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertising) Regulations 1992. Westminster council alone is spending £20,000 on serving 20 injunctions at the moment. A financial and administrative burden is being placed unfairly on certain police divisions in certain local authority areas.
I am aware of the difficulties of drafting legislation on this issue, but I urge the Home Office to move swiftly and to resist partial solutions, which rely on local authority enforcement powers and may simply move the problem, particularly in areas of central London such as those that I represent, across a local authority border, from one block of streets to another.
I am grateful for the sympathetic response that I have received from the Home Office and the Department of Trade and Industry on both call-barring and criminal offence issues. I hope that we can move forward. There is clear cross-party support on the issue. More than 80 Members of Parliament have written in support of firm action to deal with the problem. Doing so would be welcomed by Members of Parliament and business, as well as by residents of corners of our cities that are afflicted by the problem.
I am conscious of the argument that action against carding may result in prostitution being pushed back on to the streets. That is a serious and valid point. Out of concern for the safety of prostitutes—they are at risk—I do not want that to happen. Indeed, the problem of sleaze in the streets that I have described would be even greater were we to return to the situation of a few years ago, when prostitutes were working the streets.
But cards in telephone boxes are not the solution to that. They are messy and offensive, and allow no choice for members of the public who wish to make a telephone call from a public box but do not want to be confronted with such pornography. We must clamp down now on the carding nuisance, and recognise that advertising may move, and may have to move, into more targeted mediums, allowing people choice, and freeing up communities such as those that I represent from a palpable and serious nuisance.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Karen Buck, Dr. Alan Whitehead, Mr. Alan Clark, Mr. Andrew Dismore and Mr. Tony McNulty.

PROSTITUTES' ADVERTISEMENTS (PUBLIC TELEPHONE BOXES)

Ms Karen Buck accordingly presented a Bill to make it an offence to place advertisements for prostitutes in public telephone boxes; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 250].

Army

[Relevant documents: The Eighth Report from the Defence Committee of Session 1997–98, on the Strategic Defence Review (HC 138-I).]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): It is an honour to open the first debate on the Army since January 1996. I intend to cover some of the important operational and staffing issues affecting the Army, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will address equipment issues in winding up.
Several hon. Members have asked about the future and form of such debates. I want to reassure the House that the Government have no plans to reduce the long-standing arrangement that three days each Session are given over to debates on service issues. I do not, however, rule out the possibility of changing the focus of each debate, to make the debates more relevant to the operational activities and structures of the armed forces themselves. I know that there is some support for that idea on both sides of the House, and the Government want to discuss the issue with those who have a view to express.
The debate comes at a time of change. Indeed, only last week the House debated the Government's long-term vision for Britain's defence. Change means building on the Army's historical strength. In last week's debate, the Army was justly commended in all parts of the House for the determination, commitment and dedication of its officers and soldiers. I am pleased to be able to pay tribute today to them, and to the sacrifices that have been made on behalf of the rest of us in this country. Our Army aims to be the best—and it is the best.
The deployment of our Army in different roles in Northern Ireland, in the Balkans, in Cyprus, and in defence diplomacy worldwide, has given it a depth of experience and a rightful reputation second to none.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of Northern Ireland, will he confirm that it is the Ministry of Defence, not the Northern Ireland Office, that is responsible for deciding whether Guardsmen Fisher and Wright can rejoin their regiment, the Scots Guards?

Mr. Henderson: I can confirm that the decision will be made by the Army Board.
When we consider the reputation of our Army all over the world, we should never forget that its effectiveness is founded upon its ethos. As I have met our troops in Northern Ireland and in Germany, and those in barracks preparing for deployment in the world's trouble spots, the strength of that ethos has been apparent to me.
There is a discipline that recognises that a battle can be won only if everyone plays his or her part in the team effort, and an integrity that acknowledges that every soldier has to impose that sense of discipline on his or her own activities in the interests of the team objectives.
There is courage—displayed in both a physical and a moral way—without which the difficult conditions of the urban jungle, the desert or the frozen mountains could not


be overcome. There is loyalty, which the platoon—through to brigade and division—cements into an effective force. There is selflessness, which, in the extreme, means the ultimate sacrifice of one's own life. Those are the qualities that I know inspire those who serve. Those are the qualities that count when building a reputation in peace, and when winning a battle. Those are the qualities that make our Army the best, and give it the basis to act as a force for good in this difficult world.

Mr. Paul Keetch: The Minister mentioned quality. Does he agree that the 22nd Special Air Service Regiment, based in my constituency, is one of the finest regiments in the world? He also mentioned loyalty. Does he agree that the number of books that we are now seeing by former members of the regiment are of great concern to serving and former members of the regiment? Would he once and for all destroy the myth published in a recent book that it might be Government policy to disband the regiment and start again? Will he assure me and the regiment that that is not the Government's intention?

Mr. Henderson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman—and any other hon. Member who wishes to refer to the quality of their local regiment—that I am proud to confirm that the quality is high throughout the British Army, and that that is built on the strength of its historic role. In relation to the publication of articles by ex-serving members, where their contracts prohibit the disclosure of certain forms of information, the Government will take every action to make sure that they are unable to engage in disclosure which could be harmful not only to their ex-colleagues but to the interests of the defence of this nation.
I want to refer now to two principal operational theatres. Our Army is currently at the highest level of operational involvement of any comparable army, with about one in four of our serving officers and soldiers involved in operations at any one time.
In Northern Ireland, the Belfast agreement represents a new start for the people of the Province. In August, I saw for myself our soldiers serving in difficult conditions in the Province. Without their efforts in places such as Drumcree—where they played a vital role in supporting the Royal Ulster Constabulary—the Belfast agreement would not have been possible. I know that this House will want to join me in paying tribute to the service men and women who have done so much to uphold the rule of law in Northern Ireland, and who, in all too many cases, have paid for it with their lives.
The House is aware of the important momentum for peace in the Province, which has enabled a reduction in the number of troops there. Routine military patrolling has ceased in many areas, and several security bases have been closed. Those are consistent with the current security situation, but the security forces have not lowered their guard. While a significant terrorist threat remains—as, regrettably, it does—troops will remain in Northern Ireland to support the RUC. Numbers will be returned to garrison strength only after a lasting peace has been achieved.
In other operations, the Army plays a crucial role. The UK provides the second largest force, after the United States, to the NATO-led stabilisation force in Bosnia.

We currently have about 5,000 troops committed to this force who are playing a vital part in enabling the Bosnian people to start rebuilding their environment. That is also true in Kosovo. I can inform the House that the British military verifiers—including 50 Army personnel, who form the UK contribution to the 2000 international verifiers required by the Holbrooke agreement—are now ready for deployment when required by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
As hon. Members will be aware, there are other important commitments that the Army has to undertake.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: When does the Minister expect the commitment in Bosnia to end? He will recall that, when troops first went there, it was for an initial period of six months, in 1993 or 1994, I think.

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which always arises when an intervention force has to re-establish peace and build stability. Often, it is an open-ended commitment. Without the benefit of a crystal ball, it is often impossible to determine how long our armed forces will have to make such a commitment.
The important aspect of the strategic defence review is that it provides for deployment in that context. It gives us the capability to take initiatives and contribute to international efforts in places such as Kosovo for a period. Related issues, such as overstretch, must be borne in mind, because they are central to the matter the hon. Gentleman raised. Before I move on to that subject, I must mention a couple more important core activities of our Army.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced plans a year ago to increase the assistance that the Ministry of Defence provides to humanitarian de-mining. Since then, the mine information and training centre at Minley has become an important focus for awareness about anti-personnel land mines. In the past year alone, its staff have conducted liaison visits to Bosnia, Croatia, Cyprus, Laos and Cambodia.
We must always remember that, within the United Kingdom, the Army continues to provide invaluable assistance to civil authorities, with cover ranging from the disposal of wartime bombs, which happens quite regularly, to help with flood relief.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Before leaving tasks, is the Minister aware that, as part of a shift towards home defence, the Americans are establishing 170 sub-units for nuclear, biological and chemical home defence, all in the volunteer reserves? Why is that role to be taken away from the only British nuclear, biological and chemical defence regiment, which is in the Territorial Army, when it has just returned from trials in America that it passed with flying colours?

Mr. Henderson: As I will explain later, decisions have not yet been reached, and Ministers have not yet received proposals for the future of the Territorial Army. However, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that a review of the nation's needs as regards biological and chemical warfare is being undertaken. When the Government are in a position to make recommendations, the House will, of course, be informed of our needs in that regard.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am grateful to the Minister, who is being characteristically


generous in giving way. Did he have an opportunity to see the article written this week in The Times by Mr. Michael Evans, the much respected and invariably well informed defence correspondent of that publication, in which he asserted that the Territorial Army will next year have to sell drill halls to the value of £42 million to make up its budget? Is that assertion true, and, if it is, what will be the consequences for the TA if it is unable to realise enough money from the sale of property? Will there have to be further cuts in numbers?

Mr. Henderson: I know that the hon. and learned Member is always careful to trust in what he reads in the newspapers. I also know that he always tries to be helpful. No decisions have been reached on the future of the Territorial Army. I have not received any recommendations from the Army. When I do, I shall expect them to be on staffing levels and on capital assets. We need to consider how best we can utilise capital assets in the interests of organisations such as the Territorial Army, and I would be wrong not to take that into account.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: rose—

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Henderson: I am beginning to be over-generous. I shall take one more intervention; then I shall press on.

Mrs. Lait: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Before we leave the subject of the best use of Army assets, will he say what stage the tracker programme has reached? Is it appropriate for the Army to have a programme that is mounted on an armoured personnel carrier and cannot see over hills and round corners, given that battlefield reconnaissance systems such as airborne stand-off radar are available? Would he not save himself some money by not allowing those particular boys to have those particular toys?

Mr. Henderson: In the spirit of constructiveness, I should point out that the hon. Lady was—I think—referring to the tracer programme, for which there is a future. It is an important element of our capacity to redeploy—or deploy—to wherever it is necessary for our forces to move.
In the debate last week, questions were asked about the Army's structure. The depth and breadth of the Army's contribution is immense. The important changes to its structure set out in the strategic defence review are designed to ensure that it can meet its future commitments without overstretch. I tell hon. Members who raised the matter last week that I am still considering the structure of Land Command in the United Kingdom; I expect to announce the conclusions of the review shortly.
A number of other changes arise out of the SDR. In the long run, a higher level of recruitment is crucial if we are to tackle the problem of overstretch and meet our staffing targets. However, as the Defence Committee identified, other measures can help. The creation of a sixth deployable brigade and the delivery of a coherent formation readiness cycle are central to improving the Army's ability to deliver combat-ready formations in the future.
The three-year cycle will ensure that formations and units can train properly, can meet their liability to the new high-readiness joint rapid reaction forces and their

operational commitments, and can maintain an average operational tour interval of 24 months. That will reduce overstretch and improve the quality of life for our soldiers.
I inform the House that the new brigade will be known as 12 Mechanised Brigade. It will consist of an armoured regiment, as well as armoured and mechanised infantry, and will give the Army a potent and flexible new formation. The brigade headquarters will form at the end of next year, and the brigade will start training year in 2001. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] That is still under consideration.
The creation of a single specialist air manoeuvre brigade will integrate the proven experience of our airborne forces with the formidable capability of the attack helicopter. The new formation will be known as 16 Air Assault Brigade. The number 16 was chosen as it has a long association with the Paras, who will be providing two battalions to the new brigade.

Mr. Bob Russell: rose—

Mr. Henderson: I must press on a little.
The Territorial Army preoccupied the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House during last week's debate, and it will no doubt be the focus of many speeches today. A statement will be made to the House as soon as decisions have been taken. However, Ministers have not yet received any proposals.

Mr. James Gray: A moment ago, the Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) that decisions had not yet been taken, because Ministers had not yet been given any advice. Am I right in thinking that, according to paragraph 102 of the strategic defence review, the only decision that has been taken about the Territorial Army is that the nuclear, biological and chemical capability will be taken away from it and given to the regular Army? If that is so, the answer that the Minister gave my hon. Friend was not entirely correct.

Mr. Henderson: I will receive proposals from the Army at a later stage that will be consistent with the commitments in the strategic defence review. I outlined the principles in last week's debate, and I will be happy to do so again today, lest anyone be unclear. The principles are as we described: that the Territorial Army should be integrated with the regular Army; that it should be relevant, fully resourced and trained for real tasks in today's world; and that, above all, it should be usable.

Mr. Stephen Hepburn: Has my hon. Friend received my written submission to the review, and will he consider meeting me soon to discuss the future of the territorial regiment in Jarrow? That regiment, a parachute regiment, ideally suits the new role for the armed forces. One must not forget the social aspect in constituencies such as mine, where the regiment makes a real contribution to the economy.

Mr. Henderson: I have received representations, and I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend or his colleagues to discuss that issue. My office has told every hon. Member who has written to me that I am prepared to see


local representatives, but I cannot see everyone individually, or I would be here all month; I have asked that, where there are common interests, hon. Members should come to see me in clusters. My office has made some time available in my diary for that in the coming weeks. I am happy to have such meetings, as I want to have a full knowledge of local views.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Henderson: I have been very generous, and now I will be a little bit more generous, after which I will stop being generous.

Mr. Eric Martlew: I thank my hon. Friend for his generosity. Perhaps his answer could save a delegation having to come to see him. I want to ask about Cumbria and North Lancashire, and the King's Own Border Regiment.
My understanding is that the proposal is to create one company in the area. It looks like we are being dealt with very badly. There is a strong case for a second company, and I would obviously like that to be in Carlisle. We should consider whether there should be detachments. In my area, there is no money to be made by selling the TA centre, because it is Carlisle castle, a grade I listed building. If we get only one company in Cumbria, could a detachment be provided in Carlisle? Of course, we would prefer two companies.

Mr. Henderson: I will consider proposals from the TA and the Army once they have been submitted. I want full consultation, so that the objectives can be discussed locally and best solutions can be proposed. Conservative Members obtained a copy of an original document last week, and waved it about the House. The officials involved in that consultative document will review all the discussions locally and then make proposals to Ministers. Until that is done, no decisions can be reached. I have an open mind on geographical matters, but not on the principles.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Henderson: I should press on now. I gave way very generously last week and have done so today, and I want to move on to the other issues. I have said that I am prepared to see any hon. Members who want to raise specific matters, possibly in clusters.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Mike Hancock: rose—

Mr. Henderson: I am not prepared to give way, and I am not moveable on that. I am going to move on.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will deal with a wide range of procurement issues in winding up, but I should like to refer to two pieces of equipment for the Army.
The Challenger 2 tank is beginning to be introduced into service. This is a British product that is used by the British Army. When asked what he thought of the tank,

a soldier in the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards said to his commanding officer, "Aye, Sir, this is better than we had before". That is a clear judgment from those in the front line. That is our judgment, and it will, I believe, be the judgment of the international army community. The tank is good for the British Army, and it will be good, I believe, for our international exports; this is a top-quality product that can be sold to other armies throughout the world.

Mr. Robert Key: The hon. Gentleman is indeed being extremely generous in giving way.
There is just one problem with the Challenger 2 tank, of which the hon. Gentleman is proud and the Conservative Government were proud, too: where are the tank transporters? What has happened to the contracts that were meant to be up and running now for the tank transporters? The old ones will not carry the Challenger II, and there is still no date in prospect for the delivery of the new transporters.

Mr. Henderson: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but the Army is confident that it has the means to put those tanks in place in a battlefield situation. As he also knows, these matters are constantly under review. We are always looking for better ways in which to transport and, indeed, to maintain and service tanks and other equipment. That is an continuing process that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence and I take as a high priority.

Mr. Hancock: rose—

Mr. Henderson: I am not giving way.
The second piece of equipment to which I wish to refer is the Apache attack helicopter, another British product to be used by the British Army. Again, our troops are excited by the prospect of it being brought into service. I believe that that also augurs well for exports.
Staffing is an important matter, which was covered in last week's debate, but it is also germane to this afternoon's discussions. As the House will know, the Army is 5 per cent. understaffed. That shortfall is unacceptably high, and has led to stresses and strains on service men and women and their families.
The Government are determined to correct the problem, but it cannot be done overnight. We have already taken key steps to improve recruitment and to increase capacity at Army training facilities. As a direct result, over 1,800 more troops are under training than in May 1997, an increase of more than 16 per cent. That improvement will, I know, be welcomed by the House.
More and more people are joining the Army because they believe that it is a first-choice career. As I said in last week's debate on the strategic defence review, we are determined that the Army should be a first-choice career for a much wider group of people in our society. It should be a first-choice career for many more women, black people, Asian people and people from other ethnic groups.

Mr. John Burnett: For a very short time, I had the great privilege of serving with the Gurkhas. Will the Minister acknowledge the huge debt of honour that we owe both serving and retired Gurkhas?


Will he confirm that the Government will in part repay that debt by paying retired Gurkhas pensions that are fair and reasonable?

Mr. Henderson: I am happy to confirm that my view and the Government's view are the same as the hon. Gentleman's: we owe a great debt to the Gurkhas, who continue to give us support. Their pensions are determined by an arrangement with the Indian and Nepalese Governments. Pensions are at a level that is commensurate with what is appropriate as part of that agreement. I think that he will understand that, and recognise that that has to be the case.
I talk about the Army being a first-choice career for more and more people. I am also saying that we have to get highly trained staff. That is the main challenge. We have introduced specific measures to address the problem of experienced officers and soldiers leaving early. In key trades, financial retention incentives have been introduced. In other areas, cash bounties are paid to soldiers who re-enlist at the end of their service.
The strategic defence review gave the highest emphasis to investors in people. We must provide better training and education for our personnel, and I am considering how to extend our national vocational qualifications programme to all our people. I am proud that our personnel already obtain many more awards than people in any comparable organisation in the United Kingdom.
I am examining how we can modify education schemes and education support for those in higher education who may be persuaded to join the Army, and for those who are already committed to the Army but who need further support. We are confident that higher recruiting, together with a range of initiatives to improve retention, will help us to achieve our aim of full staffing in the Army by around 2004.
The strategic defence review set out a new vision for the armed forces. The Army has a crucial role in that vision, which is about looking at the world we will face in future, and being ready to play our part in upholding law and democracy. The vision is about having the right equipment to be effective in any war theatre, and about having the right support to back it up.
Above all, however, it is about having the right people—people with a binding and determined ethos, with the right attitudes, the necessary skills and the essential motivation. Those are the things that matter. Those are the qualities that make our Army the best. We should never forget or underrate the commitment of those people on our behalf. They deserve the support of the House, and I hope that they receive it today.

Mr. Robert Key: It is a pleasure to debate military affairs again so soon after the two-day strategic defence review debate. I record my sincere admiration for the men and women of the British Army, their families and all the scientific and industrial civil servants and administrators who support them. I add my appreciation, too, for the growing number of dedicated contractors and suppliers, the Ministry of Defence police and the Ministry of Defence guard force.
Wherever the Army serves in the world, we are proud of it. It is in the nature of our debates that we focus on the problems of the day, and on exceptions. I do not want

Army personnel of any rank to think that we do not appreciate and admire their dedicated and professional role in the defence of the United Kingdom and our way of life. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) will refer to issues including recruitment when he winds up later. I know that many hon. Members wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so often to hon. Members on both sides. If I may say so without sounding patronising, he has learnt his trade remarkably quickly. We are grateful to him. For the avoidance of doubt, and for the sake of readers of The Spectator, I should make it clear that this is my speech, and I believe in what I am saying. I am not just reading out someone else's words or ideas.
In order to put the Army into the broadest security context, let me examine the Prime Minister's European defence policy, a policy of some confusion and contradiction. In The Times last Wednesday, he advocated a European defence identity based on the European Union. Within minutes of the end of a two-day defence debate in the House, the Prime Minister appeared to have reversed British defence policy without telling the Defence Secretary. The Labour Government have followed the previous Government's policy of basing our defence on NATO and developing a European capability in the Western European Union. The WEU has formal agreements with NATO for the use of United States assets and intelligence and NATO's planning staff.
That was the policy both at the time of Amsterdam and of our debate last week. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), the shadow Defence Secretary, raised those points last week, and the Secretary of State made it clear that the position had not changed, by saying:
We have a comprehensive view of the role of the European Union and the Western European Union, and the European security and defence identity of NATO…The challenge for the Western European Union is to take on the task that it has been given by the Amsterdam treaty and effectively to use its new powers. The challenge for the European Union is…to apply the common foreign and security policy…in Europe".—[Official Report, 19 October 1998; Vol. 317, c. 974.]
There was no mention of a defence role for the European Union.
Last Tuesday, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence said:
Britain is playing a key role in developing NATO's new strategic concept—the alliance's own SDR—to give it an equally clear vision into the next century. We are also playing an essential role in developing an effective European security and defence identity in NATO."—[Official Report, 20 October 1998; Vol. 317, c. 1176]
Within minutes, however, the Prime Minister had changed all that, despite what he himself had said last year at Amsterdam when he claimed victory after the Amsterdam summit. He struck out any commitment to a merger between the WEU and the EU. He said that what matters is what works, and what works for Britain and for Europe is NATO. He also said that the Franco-German plan was
like an ill-judged transplant".
Following the Balkan experience and the EU's failure in response to the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia, can we seriously believe that anything can replace NATO in Europe? The Prime Minister went last week to PÖrtschach in Austria. There was no official communiqué of the informal gathering, but I have obtained a transcript


of the press conference that the Prime Minister gave on 25 October. He congratulated the Austrian presidency, and said that there were three main issues. First, there was the economic situation. Next, he said:
Secondly, in respect of common foreign and security, there was a strong willingness, which the UK obviously shares, for Europe to take a stronger foreign policy and security role. This will arise particularly because we will be appointing two people to common foreign and security positions in the European Union in the next few months so it is something that is very much on our minds but we all agreed that it was important that Europe should be able to play a better, more unified part in foreign and security policy decisions and certainly, obviously we discussed specifically Europe closer to the people, ideas for that and subsidiarity, where there was a very strong sense that we have to push on the process that was begun at Amsterdam on subsidiarity and get that implemented. As I say, I thank the Austrians very much indeed for hosting this summit and for organising it so well.
So that is all right. That is completely clear. We know what the Prime Minister achieved at that conference.
When, as at present, geopolitics is dominated by events outside Europe, and when European security is dominated by the crisis in Kosovo, it is probably not surprising that the Prime Minister is not focused on the evolution of European defence. He should be, however. The way he stumbled across the issue last week speaks volumes about the chasm in Labour's defence thinking after a generation of nuclear escapism—I make an honourable exemption for the Under-Secretary of State for Defence.
Few people doubt that what we loosely call Europe can achieve little militarily without NATO and the United States. The Eurocorps, a child of President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl in 1994, is paralysed by the military, philosophical and cultural differences between unlikely partners. The Secretary of State went to Portugal with other European defence Ministers in September to take a lead on Kosovo, and he was all in favour of committing ground troops. Planners could have told him that that would have required 200,000 troops, cruise missile strikes and a phased air campaign involving 400 aircraft. It would have taken a month to deliver. What really mattered was that the United States had no intention of getting ground troops involved. Europe is pretty helpless without the United States' input of heavy lift, satellite communications and intelligence.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Has my hon. Friend considered the implications for NATO of the new defence role? We are, admittedly, short of detail on that role, but what would the impact be on American and European partners who are not members of the European Union? Many of them—one in particular—would like to join the EU.

Mr. Key: Indeed I have. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing an important European dimension to the debate. The first and most practical reason why European common defence must stay with NATO is that we need the United States of America. The Prime Minister needs to think about the second reason. The 1948 treaty of Brussels led to the creation of the Western European Union. It contained absolute guarantees of collective defence. It also proposed military, political and economic dimensions among its European members.
The original WEU mandate was hijacked and divided by the emergence of NATO and the European Coal and Steel Community, which later became the European Union. The WEU lost its empire and did not find a role until the Petersburg declaration of 1992, when it abandoned competition with NATO and the EU and focused on a new, high-profile military response to crisis management: evacuations, humanitarian missions, peacekeeping and peace enforcement.
The WEU also established a role in less traditional operations such as blockade and embargo enforcement, minesweeping and police work. That is where my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) is so right. The WEU has an inclusive agenda and membership. It can embrace Sweden and Turkey, as well as 10 central European countries, as associate partners, and put them all on its decision-making permanent council. It is outward looking and has no standing or dedicated forces, but it has legal authority to put such forces together, up to and including borrowing a combined joint task force from NATO.
The treaty of Amsterdam gives the EU no direct defence competence. That role falls to the WEU, whose new prominence has been demand-led. Our Government should convince our EU partners that there is no institutional imperative to create a new defence competence in Brussels. Europe faces multifaceted, multi-directional risks and uncertainties. The world is still adjusting to the end of the cold war. When both the EU and NATO are adjusting to expansion, the European chemistry needs time to settle down in its defence and security pool.

Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the loudest voices among our European Union partners in favour of new defence roles for the EU are those in the process of slashing their defence budgets and reducing their armed forces to almost nothing?

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is right. I shall come to the strength of individual members.
By the end of this year, NATO must agree a new strategic plan, with political consensus at each milestone. We can also expect new regional alliances to emerge. Russian instability, middle eastern uncertainty, Mediterranean tensions and the emerging threats posed by ballistic missile technology and weapons of mass destruction all point to the need for consolidation and stability in European defence and security. By all means let us think the unthinkable, but let us also always remember that NATO was never merely a convenient post-war military alliance for the defence of western Europe. NATO was created in defence of common ideas and interests and of fundamental beliefs in democracy, the rule of law, market economics and free trade. If it ain't bust, don't fix it.
There is another new and worrying development against which the Government must guard. NATO is a partnership, an equal partnership of members. Some are stronger than others, but ultimately we are all as strong as the strongest member. A European defence identity is one thing; a European voting caucus within NATO would be quite another. The United Kingdom should always give pride of place to the north Atlantic aspect of the treaty organisation.
For more than a week, it has been stormy in Wales. The weather has been unusually violent. Life-threatening flooding has caused havoc. It will surprise no one that within hours of the flooding, the civil authorities had called on the military for help. Sandbags were filled and distributed, many stranded people were rescued, and motor and other more ingenious forms transport through the floods were provided. We are grateful to the regular soldiers from Brecon and elsewhere who took part. We are also grateful to the territorials of the 2nd battalion, Royal Regiment of Wales, which did such valiant work in Merthyr vale. It will not surprise the House that the Government propose to close two of the battalion's three TA centres.
It would be comical if it were not so serious to hear Labour Ministers using some of the very words and phrases spoken by Conservative Ministers over the years. It is sad, almost embarrassing, that the Secretary of State seems to believe that he invented defence diplomacy. That term and mission have been with the Ministry of Defence since Sir John Nott introduced it in his 1982 defence White Paper. The former Armed Forces Minister spoke of the need for the Territorial Army to be relevant and usable—the exact words of the then Secretary of State, Malcolm Rifkind in his October 1993 "Framework for the Future" of the reserve forces.
For those with an interest in Britain's volunteer reserves, July 1998 gave birth to a paradox. The Secretary of State's announcement of the outcome of the SDR, including the savage cut in the TA from 59,000 to about 40,000 volunteers, means that the bulk of the TA infantry and yeomanry regiments are set to go, on the apparent grounds that they are dedicated to military defence, such as guarding key points throughout Britain or forming a reconnaissance screen against an invading force.
I was vocal in my objection to the way in which Ministers during the summer used that as a "Dad's Army" analogy. All that will have come as a surprise to the aforesaid infantry and yeomanry, who were told back in 1992 during the first TA restructuring that military home defence was no longer a significant element in their role.
It was also announced in 1992 that all TA infantry and yeomanry regiments would be redesignated as national defence, a new term recognising a changing and uncertain threat that was designed to encompass a wide spectrum of operational scenarios. The possibilities included NATO, United Nations and national operations world wide, as well as military aid to the civil authorities in the United Kingdom and, at the remote end of the scale, military home defence.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Given that 10 per cent. of our strength in Bosnia has been territorials, are the Government suggesting that the training undertaken by the Territorial Army over the past few years has been irrelevant and unuseful?

Mr. Key: I am not convinced that the Government yet know what they are proposing. I am enormously relieved to hear that the Minister has received no proposals and made no decisions yet. I want him to listen to our case. My hon. Friend is right to make his point.

Mr. Robathan: In talking about things irrelevant and useless, will my hon. Friend comment on the many

interventions from perhaps naive Labour Members who say that they must fight for the 3rd Loamshires or whatever? Do they not realise that their Government are about to scrap all the infantry and yeomanry regiments and lump them into the 1st Midland Corps or whatever it might be called? Is not what Labour Members say therefore complete humbug?

Mr. Key: Perish the thought. It is right that all hon. Members should fight their corners, but Ministers must listen. I fear that down at Land Command in Wilton in my constituency, the military chiefs are having a terrible time knowing that the Minister is about to cave in to his Back Benchers with their individual interests. In the end, Land Command will have to fish around to make more savings to achieve what I might call the non-cuts that will become a political imperative by then. It may not be not humbug but realism; in the end, it will be the Army that pays.

Mrs. Theresa May: Does my hon. Friend agree that there will be considerable surprise outside the House at the Minister's repeated attempts to put aside concerns about the future of the Territorial Army by saying that no decisions have been taken? Setting aside geographical issues such as Berkshire's loss of a link with a TA infantry battalion, what causes most concern outside the House is the one decision that the Government have taken—the cut in the TA. That is what recently led the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead unanimously to express its regret at the loss of the TA's contribution to national defence, and at the loss of the important core skills that the public-spirited young volunteers who join the TA gain from their experience.

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is right. She has spoken valiantly for her local TA. If there is any humbug, it is that of Ministers who have pretended for a year that the SDR had nothing to do with the Treasury. We all knew that in the end, the Treasury held the purse strings in every sense.
In case no one had got the message, the principle of wider employment was reinforced in the 1994 restructuring. All units were reorganised to create a general purpose structure designed to give them flexibility of employment across the spectrum of military operations. Any remaining vestige of a link between cold-war scenarios and the role or organisation of the TA had disappeared by 1994, not 1 May 1997. The final step in the creation of a relevant and useable TA came with the passage through the House of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Just one week after the SDR was announced in July, 1,400 reservists from the three services and a vast array of unit and specialist equipment gathered on the Minley training area for the reserve forces experience. Ironically, the 74 units and 400 vehicles that comprised the experience were intended to show how the reserves have adapted to post-cold war circumstances.
The peace experience at Minley was designed to illustrate the wide utility of our volunteer reserves in a range of so-called peace operations. Visitors were reminded that the reserve components of the armed forces have contributed substantially to Britain's defence commitments during and since the Gulf war, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)


reminded us. The TA has met 10 per cent. of our total commitment in Bosnia from the outset. A total of 5 per cent. of the Royal Naval Reserve is always in service with Royal Navy units. Personnel from the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the Royal Air Force Reserve have been present in the Persian Gulf continuously since the Gulf war.
It was evident that many of the capabilities on display were unique to the reserves and build on their many civilian skills. Automobile Association patrol men in Royal Military Police uniforms and British Telecom engineers with the Royal Signals provided two good examples. It was a huge success and I learned much during my visit with the shadow Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk.
That brings us back to the SDR and the future of those at Minley who created such a memorable experience. With the evidence of their adaptability and professionalism there for all to see, many territorials could not understand how anyone could argue that the cold war was over three times within six years to justify further reduction. Many of them could not understand why the total of "around 40,000" should include 3,500 members of the Officer Training Corps and 1,500 non-regular permanent staff. Neither category, however useful, is an integral element of the Army's operational force structure. When the details of the new "revitalised" Territorial Army structure are announced, those affected will seek more convincing explanations for the demise of their units than have been deployed so far.
Is it really just money? The Government have cut the defence budget quite substantially at a time when, in the United States, the defence budget is undergoing a hike of 10 per cent and when the Americans have announced a new use for the National Guard and the reserves. Press reports from Washington point out that
changes to homeland defense, the stand-up of new reserve teams to combat weapons of mass destruction and the continuance of the reserve component integration within the active force are in the cards for reservists in the next year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has spoken about that eloquently already.
Charles L. Cragin, acting Assistant Secretary of Defence for reserve affairs, said that
reservists continue to re-serve around the world…The reserve components have a completely new role in homeland defense…the definition of homeland defense continues to evolve.
Cragin also said that
Homeland defense has been under discussion for some time, because we don't really know what it constitutes in this day of asymmetrical threats…We know for certain that it includes responding to weapons of mass destruction…We know that it includes information operations and counter-intelligence operations for information warfare. It includes the air defense of the United States. We don't know how much further it goes as it relates to National Guard and Reserve involvement.
Defence Secretary William Cohen's initiatives in the area of weapons of mass destruction have raised the whole homeland defence issue. The congressionally chartered National Defence Panel agreed with him when it recommended that the reserve component play a seminal role in homeland defence. I hope that we will see similar thinking here and we look forward to hearing more about that.
In 1928 the British general staff were told that the Cabinet had decided that there would be no war for 10 years and that there was no direct threat to the United Kingdom. So the Territorial Army had no useful role overseas and no role in assisting the civil powers—it was finished. That was on the advice of experienced soldiers who had been through the first world war. They were so wrong. How can their modern equivalents be so sure today, especially with the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) as Foreign Secretary?
I agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) who told us last week that the TA is our insurance against the unexpected. In the Gulf war we were almost down to our last platoon of infantry regulars. If the war had gone on another few weeks, there would have been no regulars to perform guard duty or to secure lines of communication. I believe that we should take the long view and not seek to rewrite history.

Mr. Brazier: I am so grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. My hon. Friend talked about the Americans. Is it not extraordinary that, perhaps for the first time since the House first met many hundreds of years ago, we have a Government saying that home defence does not matter at all when a country as powerful as America is saying that it is of critical and increasing importance?

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point and I must fall back on the Minister's argument, which is that he has not yet decided. I hope that the Minister will listen to my hon. Friend and to other hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber.
I shall deal now with Army training. It was Field Marshall Rommel who said:
The best form of welfare for troops is training, as well-trained troops result in fewer widows.
In March 1997, Lieutenant General Sir Huw Pike, then deputy commander-in-chief, produced the report, "Striking a Balance 97". It deals with the
management of the major Army training areas. He stressed the importance of each Army field training centre achieving its effective manageable capacity. He said that planning and management systems must take into account a huge range of factors such as the size and shape of the training area, which must be appropriate for exercises, the nature of the ground, the geology and the geomorphology. For example, one can put tanks on Salisbury plain but they sink at Otterburn. He talked about the importance of seasonal factors such as wet and dry weather, farming practices, interface with local communities, archaeology, which is very difficult on Salisbury plain, and conservation, which was a huge success for the Army on Porton Down. He mentioned the quality of public access, the risks of public access on military land and the recreational use of military training areas dealing with everything from 4x4s to falconry. An issue of particular importance to local residents is the management of noise from artillery fire. I do not know whether that is an art or a science, but the military have made huge strides in that in my constituency.
There is also virtual reality training. In June this year the world's largest battlefield simulator project was unveiled at the combined arms tactical training facility at Warminster in Wiltshire. The project cost about


£180 million and will be completed by 2000. More than 400 troops at a time will fight virtual battles across a computer-generated landscape, using simulators built to look like the interiors of Challengers, Warriors and Scimitars. The simulators have been designed by Lockheed Martin and can be linked by satellite to other facilities in Germany and Texas so that British and US troops can collaborate in exercises against, for example, a computer-generated motorised rifle regiment.
The United Kingdom version is the largest, covering an area the size of two football pitches. According to managers of the combined arms tactical training centre, the aim of the project is not to replace live exercises but to complement them. Virtual reality exercises help units gain advanced knowledge of their equipment, tactics and different types of terrain and scenarios. It is a great facility.
What about live training? I shall quote liberally from the document "Striking a Balance 97", which I mentioned earlier. The deficit in training land is about 39,000 hectares. Salisbury plain training area is only 33,000 hectares. That is a deficit of about 21 per cent. of the Army's total requirements. The document states:
These findings confirm the conclusions of successive HQ Land Command mid and end-year reports that there is a shortfall of training land which is adversely affecting operational readiness and military capability. They demonstrate that the widespread perception that the Army is over-provided with training land is not correct.
It points out that training land has come under growing pressure and that many units are finding it increasingly difficult to gain access to major training areas. That will become more of a problem once the full effects of the draw-down from Germany are felt on the training estate and the training needs of the joint rapid deployment force and the Allied Command Europe rapid reaction corps have been quantified.
Brigade headquarters have problems with all this. The development of existing facilities at Otterburn for the AS90 and multiple launch rocket system training is essential to help remedy the shortfalls in field firing training land. The enhanced use of Kirkcudbright, which has 1,800 hectares for infantry training, is essential. The report states that existing training areas need to be expanded.
All that demonstrates that there is a theoretical shortfall of about 83,000 hectares of training land in the United Kingdom. The effective shortfall is 39,000 hectares—a significant deficiency. We desperately need more training land.
On 26 June, I asked the House of Commons Library to find out what progress had been made on the Otterburn inquiry into the extension of facilities on the range in Northumberland national park. I was told that the inquiry opened in April 1997. It heard 80 witnesses before ending in October. The inspector then withdrew to write his report. I was informed that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has powers to override the inspector's judgment if he so chooses.
On 6 July, in a parliamentary question, I asked the Secretary of State for Defence:
what assessment he has made of the contribution to the UK national interest of training the army…at Otterburn.
The then Minister for the Armed Forces replied:
I am satisfied that there remains a strong defence need".—[Official Report, 6 July 1998; Vol. 315, c. 356.]

Later in the summer, the thing unfolded. We had on 8 July the strategic defence review statement. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, we were told, would announce his decision as quickly as possible. Then the trouble started.
On 30 July, the Government office of the north-east informed my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) that the inspector had made his report to the Secretary of State. On 14 August, the Association of Rural Communities, which is based in Otterburn, said that it had the support of the majority of local people in saying that it was more than happy for the Ministry of Defence to be there and to continue to train with weaponry capable of maintaining British and global security. It said that Otterburn had been in existence since 1912.
By 5 October, post-inquiry correspondence had been received from the Council for National Parks, the Natural History Society of Northumbria, Northumberland county council, the Ministry of Defence, the Ramblers Association, the Open Spaces Society, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, Northumberland national park authority, the Association of Rural Communities and Ponteland parish council. All those interested parties, lobbies and associations should be listened to carefully, but the final decision is not theirs. It is for Ministers to decide what is in the national interest.
On 21 September the Defence Estate Organisation wrote to the Government office of the north-east. It said:
it remains the position that it is in the national interest for the developments proposed at Otterburn Training Area to proceed with urgency to ensure the operational readiness of the AS90 and MLRS units…The proposals requiring approval from the public inquiry remain of urgent national importance.
But now, on 5 October, the whole thing appears to be open again.
The Government office of the north-east has written to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham saying:
The new issues raised relate to the potential impact arising from the recent Strategic Defence Review.
It then listed the reasons. I must tell Ministers that, although the use of electronic training simulators and laser-guided weapons technology is welcome, there is no substitute for live firing exercises. Withdrawal of the Army from Germany has put severe pressure on our training land. The indecision over Otterburn is now compromising the Army's ability to train in two of its main weapons—the AS90 gun and the multi-launch rocket system.
To reopen the Otterburn inquiry on the grounds that the SDR has introduced new policies would set a dangerous precedent. Training is training, and if the Army cannot train it is stuffed, as one frustrated colonel put it to me last weekend. The Secretary of State must stand up for the Army. The Deputy Prime Minister, who must decide, must recognise the national interest when it stares him in the face.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining the problems that we face with the development of the Otterburn training range. May I underline what he says by saying that unless we have approval by December, the ability to train troops on the


AS90 will be seriously prejudiced for many months ahead? The livelihood of many of my constituents who work for the Army will also be prejudiced.

Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He knows the situation better than most, and he has been assiduous in representing the interests of his constituents. I agree with every word that he says.
Although so many more points could be raised, I should like to finish by remembering for a moment at this time, when so many of us are wearing red poppies, the work of the Royal British Legion. There are 6 million ex-service men in this country. There are 9 million widows, wives and dependants. Last year, some 300,000 former service men and women called upon the Royal British Legion for services—everything from hospital visits to the Royal British Legion training centre at Tidworth, which I visited a little while ago. In the next few weeks, some 300,000 voluntary collectors and organisers will be out collecting money for the poppy appeal. That is extremely important not only for the past but for the present and for the future.
I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury for reminding me of a story that I have no reason to believe is untrue. Many of us will be attending our remembrance day parades and services in a few days' time. One Member of Parliament attended his usual service and parade with the Royal British Legion and listened to the sermon. There was no mention of world war one or world war two. So the Member of Parliament said to the vicar afterwards that he was surprised at this. The vicar said, "Well, you know, it was a very long time ago. It was long before even I was born so I try to make it all a bit more relevant." The Member of Parliament replied, "So you'll be having some trouble with Christmas then!"
We have no trouble at all in honouring the memory of those who made the ultimate sacrifice. We salute the courage of the finest professional army in the world, the finest volunteer reservists and the thousands of young men and women who commit themselves to serve our country and follow the flag.

Mr. Frank Cook: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). He and I have shared innumerable sessions on the Defence Committee and engaged in verbal sword play on those occasions. Strangely enough, we always came to a consensus because every member of the Committee, of whatever political complexion, put first and foremost the issues of defence of this country and, indeed, Europe, so I will not follow the hon. Gentleman through all his gymnastics today, but I will make one or two references to what he has said.
I want to pick up some of the points that I made last Tuesday when I was fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but was able to speak for only 10 minutes like so many others on that occasion. One is able to mention points, but not really to explore them in those circumstances. I gave a list of qualifications in order to justify my existence, but I omitted one. I did so deliberately, not knowing that I might have to make reference to it tonight.
I register the fact that I serve on the defence and security committees of both the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly and the North Atlantic Assembly. Indeed, I am the vice-chairman of the NAA defence and security committee. What I did not tell the House last Tuesday was that I have also been appointed to a joint working group set up to monitor and scrutinise the work of the NATO-Russia permanent joint council. [Interruption.] I can only hope that that is not an opinion on my usefulness.
The permanent joint council is a conduit for the rapid resolution of problems between NATO and the Russian Federation. The joint working group is made up of 14 people—seven from the North Atlantic Assembly and seven from the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. Of the seven from the NAA, only two are from the United Kingdom. One is the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and the other is myself. The first meeting of the group takes place in Brussels tomorrow, and I am required to meet the Russian half of the working group at Brussels airport first thing in the morning and escort them to Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, where they are due to meet General Wesley Clarke. I must, therefore, apologise sincerely for not being able to stay for the end of the debate. I shall have to transport myself PDQ to Brussels to prepare myself for that early appointment.
Having explained that point, I do not wish to emphasise it to enhance the regard in which the House may or may not hold me. However, as I make the comments today that I started to make last Tuesday, I want it to be borne in mind that my position with the NAA and the OSCE enables me to mix with, converse with and get into the heads of many senior politicians and defence experts in central and eastern Europe and in the Russian Federation. It also requires me to try to get into the heads of all our NATO allies of a similar grain. It is a great learning process—great in two ways: it is great, but sometimes it grates; nevertheless, one has to cope.
That point brings me to the main cause of my concern. Last week, I had no time to comment on the strategic defence review. The international response to the SDR has been quite remarkable. There is no question that, despite its shortcomings, which are inevitable, it has set a benchmark for other nations, both allied and non-allied. The speed with which it was conducted is quite remarkable, despite what Opposition Members might claim. That speed is one of the reasons why there are shortfalls in some areas. However, I emphasise that that review cannot be the be-all and end-all: the process must be on-going and continuous; it must never end. Internationally, it is acknowledged that we have made a first-class start, but we have to maintain the momentum.
On the issue of reserves, the hon. Member for Salisbury made great play of the situation in the United States and, to be honest, I have to say that he was right to do so. Last week, I made the point that if we set the level of our reserve forces at 40,000, it would mean that we had a reserve level of approximately 35 per cent. of our regular complement—a regular complement which, as the Minister acknowledged, is 5 per cent. below strength and which is being supplemented in Bosnia by a 10 per cent. terrier contribution. Therefore, overstretch might well be becoming—yet again—a problem within the regular forces; and, if we reduce our reserve forces to such an


extent and if we call on them to such an extent, it could well be that overstretch will become a problem in our reserve forces.
On the military side—meaning the Army—the USA, which is one of our major allies, has, in the broadest possible terms, one for one. That means that it has a reserve complement of 100 per cent. of its regular force. The Americans say that they have greater responsibilities than we have, but I wonder whether that is true. They might have more things to worry about, but they have a bigger force with which to act and a strike capability that is stronger and heavier by far. The fact that they hold 100 per cent. in reserve simply means that they want to ensure that they can call on those resources as and when they need them.
The Americans recognise that the resources they need to be able to call on in the new crisis situations facing us at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st are specialists in the sorts of activities that are currently being undertaken by the 10 per cent. that we have in Bosnia. Those activities have to be undertaken by specialists in water quality, transport, drainage, electricity generation and other services. We are not talking about pushing a jenny to the back of a building in order to do some welding, but about supplying communities with major resources, such as power. Those are the requirements and we should be building up the resources necessary to meet them, not reducing them.
That is one side of the coin—the NATO side. Let us look for a moment at the other side of the coin—the non-NATO allies who engage with us in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and who are associate members of NATO's Parliament. The Russians talk to us and tell us their problems. Their units used to rotate around the Soviet Union so that they did not get involved in corruption, but that no longer happens. The result is that units are becoming almost the property of local governors and regional warlords, because it is only those people who can guarantee the soldiers any sort of income. That income is usually provided on the basis of bartering: the regional authorities feed the troops, provided the troops repair transport vehicles, mend roads, or perform other services. A strange symbiosis is building between local chieftains and military units.
When we refer to reserves—to the need for reserves and the need to train them—the Russians do not understand. Most of their regular forces—or their conscripted forces, as I should say—are experienced in mending vehicles, or even in planting and picking potatoes, because those are the regular, day-to-day tasks that they are required to perform in order to feed themselves. When they hear us talking about reserves and ask for more information, they hear that the United States has one for one—100 per cent. reserves for the size of their regular force. When they realise that our reserve forces are not 100 per cent., they pose questions. It is difficult for me explain why our reserve forces are not as well equipped or as large as we would ideally like them to be.
I know that there is a problem of striking a balance between the Treasury requirements and the defence ideal. That is part of the problem. We saw yet again in the veiled menace apparent in the suggestions contained in the document that was leaked last week the possibility that regular officers of senior rank are exerting their influence over ministerial decisions, while the reserve forces are

outgunned because they do not have representatives at senior level who are able to hold their corner. I am pleased to hear that the Minister has no definitive proposals and relieved that no decisions have been taken. However, I urge him to ensure the appointment of a senior staff officer to represent the interests of the terriers and the reservists.
When discussing the launchers and the royal trumpshire borderers and the like, the hon. Member for Salisbury said that it will be the Army that pays—but I have to point out that it is all one Army. The regulars and the terriers are no different other than in the nature of their commitment to society. The 10 per cent. who are in Bosnia today can die just as easily, just as quickly and just as horribly as a regular soldier who has been a member of the forces for 12 years.
We are talking about one Army, and we have to ensure that its reserve component is given a strong voice against the Regular Army's top brass. I am not denigrating or criticising the top brass—who have their job to do, like everyone else—but we have to match like with like. If Tyson can get into the ring only with other heavyweights, the terriers should, like the regulars, have senior staff officers to represent their interests in budgetary debates.
In last Tuesday's debate, I asked the Minister to consider doing for British nuclear test veterans the same as has been done for our Gulf war veterans—to review their medical condition. I realise that only one week has passed since that debate, but I should have hoped to receive some sort of formal acknowledgement that consideration might be given to that request. I shall repeat the request, in case it has slipped the Minister's mind, or perhaps never reached the notebooks of the commissars occupying the Under-Gallery.
I plead for further consideration to be given to the case of nuclear test veterans, who gave sterling service to the Crown and the country. On instruction, they put themselves at risk. They were told to bare themselves—they were virtually naked—and to roll on the ground at ground zero after various explosions. Furthermore, their service records have been bowdlerised. Many of the veterans have discovered that their records contain not a hint that they ever participated in test activities. I believe that those omissions constitute a case of deliberate neglect, and to ignore their pleas for further consideration would be quite unjustified.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Have not the Australian Federal Government paid to their nuclear test veterans—to the men who were at Maralinga, in South Australia—the type of compensation mentioned by my hon. Friend?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, although I submit that they did not get sufficient compensation—but that is not the point. The Australian Federal Government established that principle some years ago and provided compensation.
Meanwhile, since the Federal Government of Australia came to that agreement with their veterans, our men and women—not only service veterans, but civilians, from NAAFI, for example—have been dying. Very soon, many of them will have disappeared entirely, at which point whichever Government are in power can comfortably rub their hands together and say, "That's that problem solved." However, the problem will not have been solved.
I also repeat my invitation to the Minister to visit HMS Kellington and its Marines, who are a type of Army—although they might object to that statement. The Kellington has Marine cadets, who are very keen to meet the Minister. I should say also that the chairman of the sea cadets has received a letter from the Ministry of Defence, offering to sell the Kellington for £12,000. The sea cadets have offered £5,000 for it.
My advice to the chairman is that he should not entertain accepting the offer from the Ministry, which is certainly not in need of a £12,000 handout that could be raised only by the cadets' regular charitable works. The cadets should not offer a penny for the Kellington, but should withdraw their £5,000 offer. The fact is that it would cost the Ministry about a quarter of a million pounds to scrap the Kellington. I have also already mentioned to the local authority that I should expect it to refuse any planning permission for the Kellington's quayside demolition. I repeat my invitation to the Minister to visit HMS Kellington, where he will receive a very warm reception. I make that invitation most hospitably—we shall not require anyone to walk the plank.
The strategic defence review is a good start. However, we have a long way to go on the review, and it has to be repeated year after year, as each new commitment is made.

Mr. Mike Hancock: Like many other hon. Members, I welcome the opportunity to have this debate—the first in almost two years—on the future of the Army. I welcome also the commitment made by the Minister that a debate on the Army, and on the other two branches of the armed forces, will be a regular feature in the House. I accept in principle his point on how such debates could be diversified, to address many of the issues that we face.
I am also delighted that the Minister has remained in the Chamber for the debate. In last Tuesday's debate, he had to leave when I started my speech. I am glad that the start of my speech today has not persuaded him that it is time to find something else to do. I put that down to "gapping"—to use the Ministry's phrase—among the ministerial team at the Ministry of Defence.
I was, nevertheless, disappointed that the Minister did not allow me to intervene in his speech on the three occasions that I attempted to do so. However, I shall offer him the opportunity to intervene in my speech to deal with the three points that I shall make, and would have made earlier in my three attempted interventions.
I should be interested to know, first, whether the Minister could tell the House what future Ministers envision for the Territorial Army. He stood back and said, "No proposals have been made to us", but I should be very interested to know what he would like to happen.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) made the point that the TA does not have great clout within the Ministry. I think that he and other hon. Members are expecting the TA to gain some clout from the efforts in the House of hon. Members who have made representations on behalf of either individual units or the huge swathe of the United Kingdom—from the highlands

of Scotland right down to the border—that could be bereft of TA units. It would be very interesting if the Minister came clean and told us what the ministerial team is hoping to achieve. If he does take on board all the special pleading, the policy that we saw exposed in all the documents that were leaked last week will be in tatters, and there will have to be a complete rethink of the matter. I am quite prepared to give him an opportunity to deal with that point.
The second point that really does require clarification by the Minister is on his statement on Challenger 2 tanks. If it is true that an order for transportation for those tanks—to wherever they will be needed in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in Europe—has not yet been placed, that the Army currently has no transport for those heavier tanks and that the Minister, as he told the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who raised the point, has been assured that there are plans to deal with such transport, the House is entitled to know what those plans entail. We should be told how we shall transport a tank that is too heavy to be carried on any existing transport and that is, today, ready for delivery to the British Army.
My third intervention would have been on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) on the Gurkhas, specifically on the Gurkhas' pensions. I did not take great heart from the Minister's comment that the pensions were based on an agreement with the Nepalese Government. Many Gurkhas, both serving and retired, find it very hard to exist on their pension when they return to Nepal. I should have thought that we owe the Gurkhas just a little more, not only for their continuing service, but for the tremendous service that they have given in the past. We should do a bit more justice to their claim for an upgraded pension.
I request also that Defence Ministers put a little pressure on Home Office Ministers to consider more sympathetically the cases of retired Gurkhas who, on retirement, want to continue working in the United Kingdom. Although there are very few such people, I am currently dealing with the cases of six of them who are now employed as laundrymen by the Royal Navy. They are seeking to be re-employed, but are being told that, because they have no residential status here, they will first have to return to Nepal before re-applying to return to the United Kingdom. Once again, that is an absurd way in which to treat people who have given decades of loyal service to this country and who continue to do so. I hope that the Minister will deal with those three specific points.

Mr. Swayne: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the pertinent interventions that he would have made, but I should like to take him back to the first and ask him to comment on the difficulties facing serving officers, of whom I am one. We know the plans that Land Command has for us to implement the Government's proposals. Distasteful as they are, we are keen to get on with them in the interests of maintaining morale and efficiency. However, we now stand to have progress delayed and unpicked by a series of Back-Bench special pleadings.

Mr. Hancock: The hon. Gentleman's intervention is pertinent, but it is optimistic to believe that the unpicking is going to take place to the extent that hon. Members hope. It is obvious that the special pleading that we heard last week and today is of such magnitude that there will


be no reduction in the TA. As others have said, if, at the end of the day, the reduction does not come from the TA, the whole strategic defence review will have to be rethought because the Government will have to find the hundreds of millions of pounds that they were hoping to save over the next five years. I suggest that the mess does not end with the TA, but surrounds the whole process on which we have been embarked for the past year.
Like other hon. Members, I pay tribute to serving Army personnel—men and women—and to the civilian workers who support them. Having been privileged since my return to Parliament, and in my previous existence as a Member of Parliament, to have seen our armed forces in operation all over the world—in Bosnia, Germany, Northern Ireland, Cyprus and the Falklands—I am proud to say that I enjoyed the time spent with those service units and have been mightily impressed by their attitude and dedication. The Minister was right to say that they have the right ethos and spirit for the job that they are doing.
The biggest issue facing the Army is undoubtedly that of undermanning and overstretch. The Minister was right to begin to tackle those problems in his presentation today. The Secretary of State has given a clear commitment to eradicate undermanning and to tackle overstretch. I am sure that every hon. Member and everyone in the Army and the armed forces in general welcomes that.
A glimpse of the scale of the crisis was revealed in the previous Parliament when the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) told the House of his experience, which I read in Hansard with great interest, when he visited serving soldiers in Northern Ireland. They were working 98 hours a week; they were away from their unit for 51 per cent. of the time; and they had very short gaps between tours of duty.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) was told in parliamentary answers of the deficits in some of the units of the Army. The Royal Armoured Corps is 5 per cent. under strength, the Royal Artillery Corps is 7 per cent. down, the infantry is 9 per cent. down on average and the Royal Corps of Signals is 10 per cent. down. There is even a shortage of chaplains—the Royal Army Chaplains Department is something like 6 per cent. Short—although the staff officers are 3 per cent. over strength.
The Select Committee on Defence has rightly examined the problem and, in its comprehensive report, confirmed that it is significant. It admitted that it had had great difficulty in getting hold of accurate information. How can it be right that the Committee set up by the House to examine defence-related issues has difficulty in getting at the truth of undermanning and overstretch in the Army? I shall quote the report so that the Minister can take the problem on board again. It states:
Precise and up-to-date information about the extent of overstretch is hard to come by; detailed parliamentary questions on the subject often meet with the response that information is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
How can the Minister tell us that there is a problem of overstretch if the figures are not available? As the Select Committee on Defence cannot get accurate information, I should be grateful if the Minister who winds up the debate could expand on the problem of overstretch.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Perhaps I can give the hon. Gentleman an example of overstretch. My regiment,

the Light Dragoons, has been in Bosnia and will be supporting its 11th squadron tour in Bosnia by June next year. Of an establishment of 398, most of whom are not married, 82 will have had their marriages dissolved over the past four years. That is an example of overstretch, and in a regiment that has been fully recruited.

Mr. Hancock: I have every sympathy with that intervention. I am sure that any hon. Member who has had any contact with any element of our armed forces will know that what the hon. Gentleman says is true not only of that unit, but of many others throughout the armed forces. It was a shame that no Minister mentioned that problem last week or today.
There is an understandable worry about whether the SDR's formation readiness cycle will prove effective in reducing overstretch. The Select Committee on Defence believes that
the proposed new cycle is at present only a paper exercise—sustaining it in practice will be a formidable challenge".
Can we be sure that the additional obligations will not disrupt that cycle? What about the tours in Northern Ireland? What will happen to the way in which men and women are trained for exercises and work in Northern Ireland? Will not there be added pressures coming from the foreign service-led initiatives about which we have been told? Quite often, emergency deployments are for battalions, not brigades. Will not the battalion that is deployed end up suffering as it does now?
We need to be able to measure the extent of the problem, which is the reason that we need to know the truth of the problem. I ask Ministers to tell us how they are going to assess overstretch, to measure the number of hours our armed forces are working and to record the length of tours of duty and the pitiful gap between tours. Without a proper assessment of the present situation, the House, our armed forces and the nation will not be able to judge the success or otherwise of the steps that the Secretary of State is now telling us he will take following the SDR. If we cannot measure, we cannot possibly be expected to judge. Surely the Minister will have to tell us a little more today about the current situation.
Of course, our Conservative colleagues have played no little part in creating the problems of overstretch. They presided over a one third reduction in our armed forces and over a cut of literally tens of billions of pounds in the defence budget.

Mr. Key: What would you have done?

Mr. Hancock: I was not in government; you were. You made the decisions, and you can hardly criticise the results of some of those decisions—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. They are not decisions that I made.

Mr. Hancock: I am sure that they were not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise if I implied that you were personally responsible for any of those atrocious decisions. I place the blame for them firmly where it belongs—on the former Conservative Government.
The Conservative Government gave away hundreds of millions of pounds in redundancy payments while at the same time spending tens of millions of pounds trying to


re-recruit people for the armed forces. We must apportion some of the blame and responsibility for overstretch and similar problems squarely on the shoulders of that Government.
I am pleased that the Government have made a commitment to full manning by 2004, but one of the major issues that we must discuss is the way in which we recruit and retain people. Part of the way to deal with the recruitment pressure that the Army is facing is to ensure that the organisation is seen to treat people better.
The equal opportunities situation in our armed forces—in the Army, as in the Navy and the Royal Air Force—is scandalous. As a result of our previous failures to tackle that issue, we have slammed the door in the face of thousands of people who would have wanted to serve, and whose skills the Army desperately needs.
Surely, now that the SDR is considering the whole of the armed forces, it is time that the Government lifted the ban that prevents gay people from serving in our armed forces. This country remains alone in the European Union with such a ban, and reform is long overdue. I hoped that the Government would have had the courage to tackle the issue.

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman may know that I have a son in the forces. I meet him and his colleagues, and although I agree with the point of view that the hon. Gentleman is advancing, I must say that the general view in the forces is very much opposed to such reform. If we take account of self-determination, it might create a very real problem in the ranks if we went down that road. I want to ensure that that is part of the consideration.

Mr. Hancock: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman has made; I well remember conversations on the subject with members of the Royal Marines when I was in Jordan recently. However, many of the men also expressed sadness when their colleagues—officers and men who had given loyal service to the Royal Marines and other units—were hounded out because their sexuality had been questioned and our rules do not allow them to remain. There are two sides of the issue, but I am sure that, ultimately, it is better for us to institute the reform in the House than be forced into it by European Courts making law that would make it a right for gay people to remain in the forces.
We must also ensure that there are no iron curtains within the British armed forces for anyone—men or women. We must make people feel that they are welcome. This morning, I listened with great interest when, on the radio, I heard a Sikh lieutenant-colonel addressing the problem of being asked to try to recruit more ethnic minorities into the Army. He said that, of 14,000 officers in the British Army, only 140—1 per cent.—were of ethnic origin. That cannot be right in a country that prides itself on being a rich cocktail of a cosmopolitan, understanding community.
We owe it to everyone to do more to ensure that more people from those groups join our armed forces. We must also ensure that we give people proper opportunities when they are in the Army. Two weeks ago, I had an unpleasant conversation—in the sense that it was disappointing—with a young Army captain. He had recently been

promoted captain. He had been through Sandhurst and done his time as a junior platoon leader, and now he was being promoted to captain, but his personal priority was to decide on the right time to leave the Army. He had come face to face with the promotional block—the fact that many young men like him, who had joined the Army at 19, hoping for a career well into their 40s, were starting to consider whether they could risk staying on past 30. That cannot be right. We must do more to support our service personnel in all ranks.
I have talked to Royal Marines, so I know how frustrated they are that, at junior non-commissioned officer level, they cannot be promoted. Some have spent between five and 10 years in a junior NCO rank, unable to be promoted because of the logjam. That cannot be right. It saps the morale of those men and, through them, of other members of the unit. It is a great shame to see those highly trained, efficient working individuals turned out of the service because their promotional prospects are up against a logjam. That problem is long-standing. Hon. Members need to ensure that firm action is taken.
We must also treat personnel right when they leave the service. People who have given dedicated service need to know that they will be treated fairly when that service ends. I think of two of my brothers-in-law. One recently left the Royal Navy after 20-odd years; the other left about two years ago, after 30 years' service. Both have found it extremely difficult to adapt to life on the outside. Both felt that what was on offer to them might have sounded good in financial terms, but did not deliver the opportunities in civilian life that they could have hoped for, because they had done specialised work in the services.
We must give families more support. For two years, the family of Private Jeans—a young soldier from Portsmouth who lost his life in Croatia—have tried to obtain justice for their son's tragic death. He was killed by Croatian youths while on a recreational visit to Split, and yet, in my opinion, the Ministry of Defence has not given that family all the help that they should have had to ensure that justice is done. With the help of the local newspaper in Portsmouth, the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and others who have come to the support of that family, things are starting to move in the right direction, but the Ministry of Defence should have been there from day one, supporting and helping that family in that difficult time.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North spoke about the nuclear test veterans. How right he was. If we are trying to conduct a strategic defence review with the avowed intention of putting people first, we must ensure that we start to honour some of our obligations to the people who went before, and the nuclear test veterans are a classic example.
I am proud to say that, at the cathedral in Portsmouth, we have the permanent memorial to the nuclear test veterans. What a shame it was that the Ministry of Defence would not allow any senior personnel to attend the celebrations when the stone was laid and the chair placed in the cathedral. No senior member of the British armed forces could attend, and no one from the Ministry of Defence visited on that splendid occasion. It was left to local politicians and the Church locally to organise the event, with the National Nuclear Test Veterans. However, the Minister was right to explain the enormous debt that we owe those young men, some of whom were put


through the trauma of being obliged to witness not one, but six or seven nuclear explosions. Moreover, when they have challenged that, they have met a conspiracy of silence.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): indicated dissent.

Mr. Hancock: That is true, although the Minister shakes his head. I have asked questions and written letters, and sometimes the Ministry of Defence has denied that the ships were even there, and that those people were part of the crew; and yet in my constituency, there are dozens of those people, who know one another and knew one another at the time, and they cannot all be pretending to be nuclear test veterans. There is a conspiracy against us, and there is a conspiracy not to give them justice.
If there was any semblance of decency in the Ministry of Defence or in government—not only the present Government, but Governments since the 1960s—those men and their families would have received just compensation. How it must have stuck in their throats, and the throats of other service men, last week to read in the newspaper that a woman police officer received compensation of £175,000 because she developed a permanent ear problem while on a surveillance exercise mission. Right though that was, it is pitiful that we treat our service men and women so disgracefully in comparison.
The nuclear test veterans are not the only veterans. The Gulf war veterans still struggle, as do our civilians who went to the Gulf. I have lost count of the times that I have raised with the Ministry of Defence the issue of civilians who went to the Gulf, trying to get them the same rights. We must ensure that people are given the support that they need.
Ex-service personnel deserve more recognition than the Government's proposed veterans section will offer. It will not do much more than the Royal British Legion does now. It needs to have more clout and to be assured that the Ministry will listen to what it says. I do not want a repeat of what has happened in the past.
For all the advances in technology—even the development of remote-controlled aeroplanes and tanks and virtual reality training, which we have heard about today—the Army still relies on people, as the Minister rightly recognised last week. The Army is nothing without the people who serve it. I hope that the Government will take the current opportunities to change the way in which we value Army personnel. We should not have to wait for an armed forces Bill in 2000. The Minister should act on equal opportunities now to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to serve.
We need answers to questions about the Territorial Army units. We do not want a garage sale of TA assets. There is already speculation that the TA's prime city centre site in Portsmouth will be sold for redevelopment. The unit is still meeting there and there are still advertisements on the tube asking people to join the TA. We should put a caveat underneath, saying that it comes with a health risk, because anyone who joins may not be in the TA for long.
We need clear targets and clear knowledge of what the Government expect of the British Army. We need measures on overstretch now. We should never again have

to hear of British soldiers working a 98-hour week in peace time. We should treat our ex-service personnel with more respect. If we do not do that, debates such as today's will be repeated year after year. The SDR gave us the opportunity to do a lot more for the men and women who serve the armed forces of this country and the civilians who back them. I had hoped that the Government would have taken the opportunity gladly and delivered more commitment to them than we have seen so far.

Mr. Jeff Ennis: I am delighted to be able to participate in this evening's debate on the Army. I was not called to speak in last week's debate on the strategic defence review, so I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Government on the SDR. It has been well received by our armed forces and our allies, as well as by the defence industry in general.
However, I should like to confine most of my comments to one proposal being considered as part of the SDR, which relates specifically to the Army and was raised in last week's debate by my hon. Friends the Members for City of York (Mr. Bayley) and for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook)—the proposal to combine the Land Command second division, which currently has its headquarters in York, with its Scottish division, which has its headquarters in Edinburgh, to create a new Land Command division with troops in both Scotland and the north of England.
Last week, the Minister for the Armed Forces told the House that he will shortly be deciding whether the merger should go ahead and whether the intended headquarters should be in York or Edinburgh. As a Member for a South Yorkshire constituency, I believe that there are many compelling reasons for the decision—if the choice has to be made—to come down in favour of York.

Dr. Godman: May I point out briefly to my hon. Friend that many of us in Scotland believe that there are compelling reasons why the headquarters should be located in Edinburgh? I am not referring to the Scottish National party's avowed intention of creating a Scottish Army. I am saying that the British Army headquarters in this case should be in Edinburgh.

Mr. Ennis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I hope that he will explain later in the debate why he thinks that the headquarters should be in Edinburgh.
From a military perspective, 80 per cent. of the regular soldiers in the combined division would be based in the north of England, with only 20 per cent. in Scotland. All hon. Members must be aware that the north of England is the British Army's core recruiting area, supplying 39 per cent. of all recruits, compared with only 12 per cent. coming from Scotland. My two home towns of Barnsley and Doncaster have strong traditions as fertile recruiting grounds for all the armed forces, particularly the Army.


The Duke of Wellington's regiment is the only organisation that currently enjoys the honour of the freedom of the borough of Barnsley.

Mr. Blunt: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House. The 13th/18th Royal Hussars and their successors, the Light Dragoons, also enjoy the freedom of Barnsley.

Mr. Ennis: I stand corrected on that point.
The Army must retain a major military headquarters in the north of England, which provides far more of its manpower than any other UK region. That presence will be even more important when the Territorial Army is restructured. There are 11,600 regular soldiers stationed in the north of England, but the region has only one major-general. Scotland has only 2,950 regular soldiers, but has two major-generals. The north of England's only general would be lost if the new division's headquarters were based in Edinburgh.
From an economic perspective, Yorkshire has lost 45 per cent. of its Ministry of Defence civilian staff over the past six years, while Scotland has lost just 23 per cent. Yorkshire has only 3,300 Ministry of Defence civilian staff, while Scotland has 9,500.
Finally, from a political perspective, the previous Minister for the Armed Forces, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) received a petition to retain the headquarters in York. signed by 24 lord mayors and mayors from throughout the north of England. That has been supported by written representations from many north of England regimental associations. When my hon. Friend makes his choice, I know that his decision will be based solely on what is best for the defence of the UK, north and south of the border—and rightly so. The ideal solution to the problem would be to establish the new command headquarters in York, but retain a major-general in Edinburgh to command the troops, as well as for other ceremonial purposes. I understand that the Ministry has already agreed a similar arrangement for London, which will retain its major-general even though it does not have enough soldiers to form a division.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take cognisance of my points, as well as the many other related points that my hon. Friends the Members for City of York and for Stockton, North raised on the issue in last week's debate on the SDR.

Miss Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to have been called to participate in the debate. It is particularly appropriate for me to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis), because I should like to cover some of the same ground.
I pay tribute to the armed forces in my constituency. Those at Dishforth and Topcliffe barracks are particularly relevant to the debate, but I also pay tribute to the volunteers in the Territorial Army and my constituents who work at York barracks in the constituency of the City of York. I should also like to mention the contribution made by RAF Leeming and RAF Linton.
With regard to the proposed closure of York barracks, I should like to make the case for retaining a two-star command headquarters at Imphal in the City of York—the neighbouring constituency to mine. The implications for employment nationally and locally are compelling. At national level, the military staff leaving the barracks will be redeployed elsewhere in the country. The implications for local employment and the local economy are severe. Following relocation of the second division headquarters, civilian employees—the locally based labour force who commute from the Vale of York—will become unemployed, causing serious repercussions. They will probably have difficulty finding non-defence industry employment. Their loss of spending power will damage the local economy, and loss of revenue to shops and businesses in the Vale of York will be very serious.
Although it is true that the Vale of York is primarily a rural constituency, 30 per cent. of the population reside in areas in the city of York such as Haxby, Wigginton, Poppleton, New Earswick, Clifton Moor, Clifton Without and Rawcliffe. Many of my constituents work in York barracks or benefit, through shops and businesses, from the spending power of those who do. The total annual fall in local income in direct, indirect and induced losses in the wider York area following relocation of the second division headquarters is estimated to be £7.2 million at today's prices. It is clearly difficult to calculate exactly what percentage of that income would have been spent in the Vale of York. Of the total of 294 job losses, a substantial number will undoubtedly be lost among constituents in the Vale of York. Although the city of York may be compensated in part by income from alternative uses of the site, such benefit will not accrue in the Vale of York in the long term.
From a defence, operations and capability perspective, I am concerned that the Land Command will be too removed from the area it serves, as the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough pointed out. I remind the House that, until quite recently—eight to 10 years ago—the command headquarters was based at Colchester barracks in East Anglia. Moving it again must put into question its effectiveness and hands-on control. If it is to be moved to an even more remote location—we do not yet know where—such effectiveness would be put at even greater risk.
Of further concern to operations and back-up in the Regular Army must be cuts in the Territorial Army, to which other hon. Members have referred. Let us be clear, the cuts have nothing to do with modernisation of the armed forces or improvement of their operability. The changes proposed amount to direct cuts in services that are needed to meet the commitments of front-line Army operations. Hon. Members would appreciate the Minister coming clean on that point.
I should like to pay tribute to the role that the TA plays in the armed forces. The tradition of the Territorial Army is highly and widely regarded in the Vale of York. Many of my constituents have served and continue to serve the local area and the country in the TA, of which we are extremely proud. I seek an assurance from the Minister that the future role of the TA in the Vale of York, North Yorkshire and the country generally will be secured.
I hope that the Minister accepts that cuts to the TA are shortsighted and regrettable. They will reduce adaptability in the face of future threats, especially in dealing with the unexpected. I hope that the Minister, his Department and


the Government will reconsider the level of proposed cuts. Can he really tell the House, hand on his heart, that the proposal for 40,000 volunteer established reserves in the TA is sufficient to meet all future commitments?

Mr. Swayne: There has been considerable talk about overstretch. There is already overstretch in the Territorial Army. The TA is tasked largely with carrying the entire "Keeping the Army in the Public Eye" programme, running the executive stretches and business challenges. Soldiers in the squadron in my constituency are out every weekend. They are already overstretched. How we are to carry that load, with all its implications for recruitment, I cannot understand.

Miss McIntosh: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The problem of undermanning and overstretch is one that we can all understand. Why then target the one sector—the TA and other armed forces reserves—that is capable of meeting any future unpredictable overstretch or undermanning?
Those who live in Vale of York are concerned about the decision to bring the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations boundaries into line with the new regional command structure. Although it might at first sight seem sensible, I wonder how the proposal will operate in practice. According to the Defence Committee's report, merging the north-eastern and Yorkshire TAVRAs will simply not work. The area covered will stretch from Berwick-upon-Tweed to north Lincolnshire. That is simply too large an area in which reasonably to expect the maintenance of a local presence. How, in practice, will an already undermanned and overstretched TA meet its commitments within the new boundaries?
I should like to end on a local note. The Duchess of Kent's military hospital in Catterick, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Leader of the Opposition, has provided years of medical care—primarily to constituents of my right hon. Friend, although some of mine have been treated there, too. Since the hospital will no longer be available to treat civilian patients, they will have to be treated at national health service hospitals. The extra burden placed on those NHS hospitals is calculated by the local hospital trust—this is a conservative estimate—to be £500,000 a year. Do the Minister and his Government consider it appropriate that that shortfall should be met by the defence budget? Could he possibly raise that this week with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that the Chancellor may include details of the necessary arrangements in his statement next week?

Mr. Steve McCabe: I am grateful that, as we approach Remembrance Sunday, we should have this opportunity to reflect on the past achievements of the Army and to think about their future role, so that we can ensure that our security considerations and obligations at home and abroad are adequately catered for in the months and years ahead. This debate gives us an opportunity to remember the very difficult roles that we expect our troops to perform around the globe. They have faced tremendous risks during the troubles in Northern Ireland and made extraordinary efforts in Bosnia in quite appalling conditions. They are stationed in

Cyprus and, at this very moment in Belize, 700 troops are preparing to face the wrath of hurricane Mitch. In addition, many others are on attachments and missions around the world.
Our Army has a tremendous and proud history which has earned it respect and admiration around the globe—but times are changing. It is surely clear that, today, we need an Army that is capable of responding to new challenges. That is why we must welcome the concept of jointery, and the better co-ordination of all three services that will result from the strategic defence review. It is why we should support the principle of two combat divisions, and the proposals that the Minister has already described to put our brigades on a cycle of training and high readiness for deployment that will enable them to meet the demands that we make on them.
We need to recognise both how overstretched the Army has become, and the dangers that still exist, while acknowledging the Government's efforts to address them. Conservatives are sometimes tempted to claim a monopoly in patriotism and in support for our forces—but I wonder how a party that left our Army so under-resourced, and under strength to the tune of 5,000 personnel, can hold its head up. With its track record, how on earth does the Conservative party dare accuse any of us of humbug?
I see that the chief accuser, the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), is off causing mischief elsewhere; his was a short contribution to the debate.

Dr. Julian Lewis: As the hon. Gentleman has made that challenge, and to give him time to get back to his text, may I tell him that it is easy for the Conservative party to hold up its head over its record on defence because, throughout the cold war, when the Labour party and three quarters of its parliamentary representatives wanted us to get rid of our strategic nuclear deterrent in a one-sided way, the Conservative party, alone of the three main parties in the House, stood up for the nuclear deterrent, backed NATO and saw off the threat from the Soviet Union?

Mr. McCabe: I am grateful for that intervention, but I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that what I am interested in is a broad-based British Army under the control of the Government, owing allegiance to the Queen; I am not interested in the military wing of the Conservative party. To be against nuclear destruction does not mean that one lacks patriotism or a concern for defence.
As I said, I welcome our new priorities for conflict—[Laughter.] I obviously lost the thread of that part of my text, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I had better start again. I welcome our new priorities for conflict prevention and defence diplomacy, and I am mindful of the comments by the Chief of the Defence Staff, who said that our reform of the military
gives us a stability that we haven't had before and will be very well received by the Servicemen and Servicewomen who are currently serving".
Change can be painful. I am aware that there is some concern about the proposed reduction in the Airborne Brigade, but surely what we want is a functional Army, not forces that live solely on past achievements. If the last major parachute combat drop was in Suez back in 1956, a good case can be made for restructuring, even where there are long and proud traditions.
I acknowledge that there must be changes in the Territorial Army as our priorities shift. I support the idea of improving the deployability and usability of our TA reserves. We also need to find out why 30 per cent. of TA recruits leave within a year of joining, and what can be done to improve that position.
I hope that it is made abundantly clear that our aim is to reform the Territorial Army, and that there is no question of easing it out of existence. [Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) did not hear me, so I am happy to repeat what I said. I hope that we can make it abundantly clear that our aim is to reform the TA, not to ease it out of existence.

Mr. Gray: rose—

Mr. McCabe: I know that the idea attracts criticism, both within the regular Army and from other quarters. One of the problems is that some of the Territorial Army's supporters can at times be more obsessed with tradition than with functional use. None the less, it has a valuable role to play. Its efforts in Bosnia have been outstanding, and I know of the rich range of skills that its members possess and the value that they add to so many areas of life, because of my own contacts with the 5th (Warwickshire) battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. Now it is my turn to get in a plug for my own Territorial Army outfit, although in fairness I must confess that it is based in the neighbouring constituency of the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McCabe: By all means.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for repeating his earlier comments, but it was not that I had failed to hear them; it was simply that I could hardly credit my ears. Apparently he believes that a reduction from 59,000 active members of the Territorial Army to what, if we remove the officer training corps, and with the removal of virtually all the infantry and yeomanry, is effectively 37,000, is something other than doing away with that part of the Territorial Army. I am grateful to him for his support of his local regiment—but it will disappear.

Mr. McCabe: I simply repeat the point that I was making, that we must look at the functional use. Tradition is important, but it does not deal with defence.
I should like to see more imaginative use made of the Territorial Army. It could have a clear role in supporting local authorities during emergencies and disasters—[Interruption.] With respect, the Army is not engaged solely in defence, vital though that may be.
We should also think about whether the Territorial Army could have a role to play in the new deal, especially with the environmental task force. I wonder whether there is a prospect of considering some kind of voluntary national service, in which young unemployed people could train to acquire new skills to enable them to help both locally and, perhaps, abroad. We must stop thinking about the Territorial Army as it existed in the past.

Mr. Owen Paterson: rose—

Mr. McCabe: No, thank you.
We must stop adhering solely to previous traditions. We have to think about functional use for the future.
As I said earlier, I welcome the Government's reforms, and there are areas in which there may be scope for further reform. I wonder whether, at the end of the cold war, we can really justify continuing to station one quarter of our army on the continent. I have doubts as to the value of that.
It is also important to think about personnel arrangements in the Army. Other hon. Members have said that it is important to equip the Army properly, but it is the quality of the personnel that gives our forces their strength, and we must ensure that the pay and conditions of service reflect their high value and the high esteem in which we hold them. I also hope that we will tackle the issues that other hon. Members have raised about the plight of veterans.
We need to deal with other aspects of life in the Army. I welcome the proposals to increase the number of posts available to women, and to set new targets to boost recruitment for our country's ethnic minorities. I want to see an Army that genuinely reflects British society. That has to mean more women and more members of ethnic minorities at all levels. In particular, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) said, it must mean an end to the situation in which the officer corps is largely confined to white men from a particular class and stratum of society. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South gave the figures earlier. Hon. Members may choose to say that what I say is not true, but the figures are there.
I would like to see an end to the horrendous bullying and brutality to which some recruits are subjected. All of us must have been appalled at the murder of the young Danish tour guide in Cyprus by British soldiers, and by the occasional loutish and brutish behaviour of British soldiers in Ayia Napa, which is more reminiscent of the behaviour of football hooligans than British Army personnel. Such behaviour disfigures our Army and undermines the wonderful efforts of our soldiers around the globe. Let us make sure that, in future, there is no place for racism, other forms of discrimination, bullying or thuggery in our forces.
As we approach Remembrance Sunday, I want to remember the good things that our forces do, and have done, and the tremendous sacrifices that they have made. I want to look forward to a modern, efficient Army that reflects our society and plays a major peacekeeping and crisis-management role wherever it is needed. Finally, I should like to see a Regular Army that can be supported and reinforced by TA reserves whose effort and commitment are properly recognised. However, it must be a TA that is based on modern requirements. There is no point in nostalgically looking at what used to be.

7 pm

Mr. Nick Hawkins: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) got so confused reading out his speech that he almost did not appear to have written it. I have recently been with the Army on the armed forces parliamentary scheme with two Labour Members—the hon. Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) and for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow)—and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). The purpose of


the scheme is to ensure that those who have had too little contact with the Army in the past spend some time with the Army at the sharp end and understand what the Army is all about. The hon. Member for Hall Green might like to get in touch with the former Member of Parliament Sir Neil Thorne and volunteer to join the scheme next year. He would then understand the staggering ignorance that he has displayed this evening.

Mr. McCabe: First, I would be more than happy to join the scheme, but I am currently busy with the West Midlands police parliamentary liaison scheme, which teaches the same sort of thing. There is a limit on my time, as there is on that of most hon. Members. Secondly, it is dangerous and arrogant of the hon. Gentleman to assume that I know nothing about the Army, or to dare to suggest that my words are not my own.

Mr. Hawkins: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman wrote his speech, even though he got confused in reading out a lot of it.
There is a memory loss among some Labour Members in relation to the cold war, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) made clear in an earlier intervention. Labour Members have suggested repeatedly that the previous Conservative Government were mistaken in making the changes in "Options for Change" and "Front Line First" without apparently understanding that it was absolutely necessary to recast our armed forces in light of the collapse of the Warsaw pact. We are criticising the Government's suggestion in the strategic defence review that huge further cuts are needed, especially in our reserve forces.
I am staggered that Labour Members such as the hon. Member for Hall Green should suggest that there could be scope for even further cuts, and that there is a need to damage further the traditions of the armed forces. It is clear to those of us who have spent time with the forces, who come from services families or who, like me, have sons who are cadets, that morale is crucial to recruitment and retention. I hope that the Minister will concede that when he winds up. The cap badge traditions are vital to morale, and the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the traditions of the British Army can be carelessly tossed away is staggeringly complacent. I hope that, on reflection, he will realize—as he will if he reads the excellent Defence Committee report in response to the strategic defence review—that his views were sadly misconceived.
I want to refer briefly to some constituency issues. I must apologise to my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench and to the Minister for the fact that a long-standing commitment means that I will not be present to hear the winding up speeches. However, my constituency concerns go much wider than purely parochial matters.
As the Minister understands, anyone who cares about the British Army is concerned about what happens in Camberley. The Minister will be aware that I have referred to the issue a number of times at Defence questions in the past 18 months. It is not acceptable for Ministers to give both oral and written answers in which they tell my constituents that they will be able to announce what will happen to the staff college buildings in Camberley "shortly", but still—after 18 months—not to give an answer.
I hear that there is now a prospect that the joint doctrine centre may go into the staff college buildings. I hope that, at long last, the Minister will be able to confirm whether that is the case. If he is not able to say so tonight, perhaps he or one of his right hon. Friends would confirm that in writing. My constituents are concerned that that important listed building is being allowed to stay empty and unused. It is important that a proper, high-profile military use is found for it.
I want to hear from the Minister about the future of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and the disposals that are anticipated in relation to DERA land. Once again, if he cannot deal with that matter tonight, I hope that he will write to me subsequently.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)—in a brief intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh)—referred to the crucial role of the Territorial Army in terms of keeping the Army in the public eye. Those of us who have spent time with the armed forces know that everybody in the TA is well aware of the vital role they fulfil in terms of making the public aware of the forces. I realise that the present Labour Cabinet may be the first Cabinet ever not to have a single member with service in the armed forces, but I have no doubt that all Ministers are aware of the TA's vital role in keeping the Army in the public eye. If the TA changes—and if the Government's proposals in the strategic defence review are carried out—it will be much more difficult for it to perform that role.
The Government's proposals suggest that the TA might exist only in our major cities and will not have a national geographical "footprint", as it is called. The suggestion is that it will not be visible in rural and suburban areas, and that is a damaging prospect. I heard on the grapevine that one of the TA units earmarked for possible closure and disposal of its site is in Camberley, and that is extremely worrying for my constituents. I hope that, on reflection—and once all the consultations are in—the Government will decide to reverse their damaging proposals for a severe cut in the TA, as announced in the strategic defence review.
The fitness of the private soldier is also important for recruitment, retention and morale. The couch potato culture that sadly exists among many of our teenagers became evident during our visit to the Army training regiment in Pirbright, next door to my constituency. Much longer training periods are required and the training regiment even has remedial platoons because so many young soldiers cannot attain the relatively modest initial fitness levels. The Minister knows that that has a serious effect on training. The health of recruits is vital. Sadly, there have been a number of tragedies recently during training, which concerns the Minister as it should concern every hon. Member. I hope that we can ensure more fitness training and a gradual improvement in the standard of recruit fitness, which will help to prevent such tragedies.
The Minister will want to work closely with colleagues in the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, but they made a catastrophic error when they allowed their colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment to remove sport from the core national curriculum. Only with sport in the core curriculum, as it was under the previous Government, can we ensure that


tomorrow's recruits are of the required fitness standard, which is vital if we are to develop the sort of young soldiers that we need for the future.
Finally, I hope that what was undoubtedly a Treasury-led, rather than a foreign policy-led, strategic defence review, with many of the deals that were struck behind closed doors based on flogging off Territorial Army centres, will be reconsidered. I hope that we will have an opportunity to build the sort of Army that we need for the 21st century, not the sort that is based on cuts to do a deal with the Treasury.

Mr. Andrew Reed: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). Obviously, the parliamentary scheme has taught him to make a tactical withdrawal at the first sign of fire, as he moved from Blackpool, South to the relative safety of Surrey before May 1997.
I have much in common with the hon. Gentleman and would like to add to his comments about fitness levels. As he knows, we share many views on the importance of sport to our nation, in particular for young people. I am delighted that, as from 1 October, we have ended—hopefully—the sale of school playing fields. We lost so many under the Conservative Government and that contributed greatly to the present level of unfitness.
I am relieved that my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) and for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) have withdrawn. They gave us Edinburgh versus York and, as the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough, is rather large and was sitting next to me, he convinced me that York is a sensible place for the relocation when it happens.
I have no direct experience of the armed forces, although there is a Territorial Army base in my constituency and I was a member of the local authority there when large cuts were made in Leicestershire and the Charnwood borough under the previous Administration. We lost an airfield, a military base in Melton, the pay office in Wigston and a signals base in Charnwood. Cuts are not new and our armed forces have always been the subject of redistribution and change.
I have no family history in the armed forces, although my grandfather served in the first world war, but I am pleased to take part in this debate. Usually there is much cross-party consensus in such debates and it was a shame that some of that was destroyed today by the contribution of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. People often see us shouting across the Chamber at each other and it is important that on occasions like this we can have a sensible and rational debate about the future of our armed forces.
The Minister will be pleased to know that I am not here to lobby on behalf of the TA base in my constituency, although I am confident that the newly refurbished base, which cost £1.2 million between 18 months and two years ago, will be saved. I am confident that one would not want to waste such recently expended public money by closing it down and I understand that there are no proposals to do so.

As with other organisations, the Army is people based and I am glad to say that the language in the strategic defence review reflected that. We have heard much about the people's this and the people's that in the past 18 months and Conservative Members may be a little tired of hearing it, but I want to concentrate on the people-based armed forces that we need. I admit that I do not have great knowledge of the armed forces, but my experience as an outsider—seeing what is going wrong with the recruitment and retention of the next generation—may help a little. Those looking in from the outside recognise the great reputation and tradition of our armed forces. Everyone recognises the need for the cap badge mentality. People in the Army are proud of their traditions and their regimental flags. Their history is part of the tradition of the regiment and it is important that even Labour Members should recognise that.
People throughout the world recognise the tremendous reputation of our armed forces. We often say that our troops are some of the best in the world and perhaps it is true. Despite American bravado—too often evident on the international scene—about American troops being the best, our troops far outstrip them and I think that we can honestly say that they are the best. That is due to the fact that they are highly skilled, motivated and professional. However, we must recognise the importance not merely of front-line troops but of all those in the background, including those in support and logistics and civilians working in the Ministry of Defence.
I want to ensure that we not only demonstrate the sort of career that the armed forces can offer, but concentrate on the way in which the forces have treated people. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) mentioned one reason why people may be fearful to join the armed forces—the way in which we have treated our Gulf war veterans and those who suffered because of nuclear tests. Some of my constituents have Gulf War syndrome, or whatever we have decided to call it. I urge the Minister to do everything possible to establish what illnesses are a result of that syndrome. So many questions still need to be answered. I urge him to outline what resources are being committed to the studies. Are they totally and genuinely open to scrutiny? What is the timetable for responses? I hope that it will be some time in the new year.
Our Army is people-based. Competition in the open labour market is considerable. What do the armed forces offer people compared with the other opportunities placed before them at the job centre? What can the Army uniquely offer individuals? We need to listen to the reasons why people are not joining the armed forces. It is not merely a knee-jerk reaction. We must genuinely understand the blocks that prevent the ordinary people whom we need to recruit from joining. There is no quick-fix solution, and nothing that has been said this evening will change that. A long-term commitment must be made. We all understand the figures; we know about overstretch and the idea that members of the armed forces are overworked.
We must ensure that joining the armed forces is a viable option not only for individuals but for their families, particularly in terms of welfare and education. The strategic defence review included initiatives for the coming years, but we need to move quickly. I was pleased by the inclusion of education and the key role given to lifelong learning—we must recognise the importance of


vocational and academic qualifications. When I have spoken to people in the armed forces, I have been impressed by their skills and the level of vocational qualifications that they have attained, which should be marketable in the open labour market when they decide to leave the forces.
I make a plea—I recognise that we may not be able to solve this problem in the short term—for those of my constituents who have left the armed forces with good qualifications and who may be confident in themselves, but who lack the ability to make the transition back into civilian life. We do not want to encourage too many people to leave, but we must recognise that many find the transition difficult. People also fear that they will become trapped in the forces and may not be able to move on. I want the forces to be able to retain people with skills, but we must do something to make the transition out of the forces easier.
Another problem, which I have discovered from talking to constituents who, for one reason or another, have not joined the Army, is the perception of the attitudes that are held in the forces. We have heard this evening about racism and sexism and the question of homosexuals in the forces. I find it frightening that, out of 14,000 officers, only 140 are from our black and Asian communities. In Loughborough, the TA has been reasonably successful in recruiting people from those communities, but it has been a small trickle. About 6,000 or 7,000 people from the ethnic minorities live within a mile or so of the TA base in Loughborough, yet we see only a handful of black and Asian faces in the organisation. We have a long way to go in increasing confidence among members of the ethnic minorities, so that they feel safe in the armed forces.
I should also mention sexism and the way in which we deal with the issue of homosexuals in the armed forces. I was slightly disturbed to hear the argument that, because of homophobia, members of the armed forces do not want homosexuals to join. We should recognise that, throughout history, homosexuals have played an important role in the armed forces but have been forced to keep their sexuality quiet.

Mr. Gray: This touchy-feely stuff is all very well, but does not the hon. Gentleman remember that the soldier's primary job is to close with the Queen's enemies and kill them? The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) may laugh, but that is the soldier's primary role. The best people to recruit to the Army are not necessarily those who reflect society in Britain today but those who will be qualified to close with the enemy and to kill him.

Mr. Reed: I am not sure which people the hon. Gentleman is suggesting are not able to do that job. Many black and Asian people played a vital role fighting for our nation in the second world war, and many homosexual individuals died in that war. I have no truck with his argument—people from those groups can serve happily in the armed forces, and it is plainly wrong to suggest otherwise.
Sexism is still a problem, as, for young individuals, is bullying. Conservative Members may talk about touchy-feely stuff, but it is not Labour Members who go on bonding weekends. Conservative Members spend much more time at weekends touching and feeling one another than we do, perhaps because the Opposition

Benches are not sufficiently full—Conservative Members cannot touch and feel one another during the week, so they feel that they have to go away at weekends to do so. The Labour Benches are always so full that the touchy-feely stuff comes day after day—[Interruption.] Well, on most occasions.
We must take major strides if the armed forces are to be ready for the 21st century. I agree that that entails our having a killing machine—call it what one will—but other skills are required as, for most of the time, the armed forces are involved in peacekeeping missions around the world. The armed forces must reflect society—if they exist to protect society, they must represent it. It would be dangerous if, in this multicultural Britain, only a thin strata of society fought at the front.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider all aspects of recruitment and retention, to improve what the job offers and the facilities available for families and the education of children. We must put at the forefront the needs of the armed forces, but we must also ensure that families feel part of the forces. As Members of Parliament, we are only too aware of families being torn apart—it happens to us weekly—but the way in which the armed forces treat the family, which can play an important supportive role, is sometimes wholly wrong.
We must ensure that there is zero tolerance of racism and sexism and that the armed forces are ready to face the challenges of the 21st century. We must be supportive, especially to the cadet movement, which is extremely strong in my constituency, as that will encourage people to be ready and motivated to join the armed forces.
This debate is not only about the TA; the problems are much deeper than some of us want to recognise. The Army is not an attractive option for many young people leaving schools, and the challenges exist for us all, not only for the ministerial team. As has been said, we are advocates for the armed forces in our constituencies, and we must make them an attractive option for future generations.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), as I want to deal with a number of the issues that he raised, including the ethos of the Army, and the difficulties that arise for it in dealing with women and homosexuals.
First, I should declare an interest. I was a regular soldier for 12 years, and my father was a regular soldier for his whole career, as were both my grandfathers—by background, I am soaked in the Army. I hope that what I say will reflect some instinctive understanding of an institution of which I am immensely proud and which I am desperate to protect—I am anxious that it should not be damaged by any Administration.

Mr. John Smith: Should not the hon. Gentleman declare a further interest? He was a special adviser to the Conservative Govemment who imposed some of the biggest cuts on our armed forces in their entire history.

Mr. Blunt: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has noticed that the cold war came to an end during the Conservatives' time in office. It would be totally indefensible to expect defence expenditure now to be


about £33 billion, which is what it would be if it consumed the same proportion of gross domestic product that it did during the cold war.

Mr. Peter Brooke: My recollection of that period is that Labour Members barracked us for a peace dividend to be yielded at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Blunt: My right hon. Friend makes the point with the utmost eloquence.
Let me correct the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) further: I began my time as a special adviser to the Ministry of Defence in February 1993, and very shortly after that, we started adding back battalions and regiments of armoured reconnaissance to make up for some of the cuts following "Options for Change", which, at the edges, made judgments that were wrong, especially on infantry numbers and the amount of armoured reconnaissance. I am happy to concede that the strategic defence review has taken the process further, and made further welcome adjustments.

Mr. Hawkins: On the peace dividend from the end of the cold war, does my hon. Friend agree that the main reason for the collapse of the Warsaw pact was the resolve shown by a Conservative Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, and United States President Ronald Reagan, and that, had the policies then and for many years advocated by Labour been followed, the Warsaw pact would probably be alive and well today?

Mr. Blunt: I wholly agree.
European defence should have been debated a week ago, when we discussed the strategic defence review. At 4.30 pm last Tuesday, when many hon. Members were debating the review, the Prime Minister was briefing journalists, including Mr. Philip Webster of The Times, on a major European Union defence initiative that he intended to float past fellow Heads of Government at Pörtschach.
Yesterday, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin) told us of Chancellor Schröder's reaction to the proposals, but the House has not heard the proposals themselves. I made that point to the enforcer, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, and asked whether it was a proper co-ordination of policy across Government that the Prime Minister should be briefing journalists on a major defence policy in Europe, with the Defence Ministers then in the House seemingly in ignorance of the proposals. I had a most interesting reply. He told me that the Prime Minister was not briefing Philip Webster.
When I wrote to the Minister for the Cabinet Office to ask him to correct the facts in the House, he replied:
the Prime Minister was interviewed on the record by UK and European journalists, including Philip Webster… The interview covered ideas that might be considered with EU partners with a view to more effective defence co-operation. But, as I reflected in my reply, there was no question, as you alleged, of the Prime Minister briefing either Philip Webster or other journalists on a 'major revision to defence policy'.

There we have the answer. When is a briefing not a briefing? When it is an interview on the record. It remains a disgrace that no Minister has made a statement in the House about the proposals.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: It was indeed discourteous of the Prime Minister to have talked about a European dimension for defence while we were debating the review in the House. It has long been Liberal Democrat policy that there should be a European dimension to our defence. The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) made a lot of comments about how the Government are dealing with the issue, but how do the Tories want to deal with it? Are they interested in a European dimension or not?

Mr. Blunt: Those points would be better put to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), who speaks for the party, but I am grateful for the hon. Lady's support, and I hope that she will sign my early-day motion condemning the Prime Minister's actions, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has already done. I do not have time to answer her question.

Mr. Brooke: Does my hon. Friend recall that, in the early 1950s, the decision by Sir Anthony Eden to commit four divisions to the British Army on the Rhine was taken specifically in support of a European defence agreement that then failed to get through the French Assembly?

Mr. Blunt: Indeed. Conservative Administrations since the second world war have a proud record of supporting European defence, since 1949 through the institution of NATO. As the Minister will no doubt remind us, the late Ernest Bevin's greatest achievement was helping to found the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
I thoroughly welcome the fact that the Government put people at the centre of the strategic defence review. The supporting essay on people quotes a member of the armed forces, I imagine, who said:
If we don't look at personnel issues then the SDR will fail.
I wholly agree with Defence Ministers, and with the lady or gentleman who said that. I welcome this evening's news about recruiting figures, but that is the easiest part of putting overstretch right, because one can put a great deal of money into advertising campaigns and building up the recruiting structure. Retention, however, is equally, if not more, important.
The Army is the service most affected by undermanning, and the review must address the problem. I am afraid that the people measures set out in the review to try to improve retention are, frankly, pretty small beer. The review recognises the importance of the challenge. It says:
They also understand that personnel policy alone cannot resolve the imbalances between wider Defence Policy, commitments and resources… If some of the proposals in our Policy for People seem modest it is only because we have promised what we can deliver. Addressing the personnel problems that affect the Armed Forces will take time, trust, and money.
That is the glaring contradiction running through the review: there is not enough money to deliver the policies for people that will enable it to be a success.
The section on service personnel goes on to say:
To provide a framework for addressing the problems we have identified, we need a comprehensive personnel strategy to take the Armed Forces into the next century. It must: incorporate all that is best in current practice…especially the ethos and values needed to support operational capability".
On the specifics of what is to be done to help retention in the Army, the review says:
We also aim to improve retention with a range of new measures including: enhancements to operational welfare"—
which I think means more telephone calls home—
introduction of a common leave entitlement and a programme to improve standards of single living accommodation.
On further inspection, it turns out that that programme involves no new money, and was under way before the review took place.
If there is no reduction in the commitment for the armed forces, overstretch and retention problems will get worse, not better. There is a glaring contradiction, because of the requirement to deliver efficiency savings of 3 per cent. each and every year for four years to make the review work.
One might hope for a miracle from the appointment of General Sir Sam Cowan as Chief of Defence Logistics, but the effort to find £2 billion a year by the fourth year by combining the logistic operations of the three armed services will mean that the search for efficiency savings will go down through every level of the budget holders, until eventually individual units in individual base locations will have to scratch around for 3 per cent. savings each and every year. I hope that hon. Members will understand the scale of the task. It is equivalent to having to save 100,000 jobs in supporting the armed services. The armed forces have been set an enormous task, which has the potential, I fear, to destroy the policy for people that every hon. Member supports.
I am most concerned about the impact on the quality of life of service men and people in the Army. The Royal Armoured Corps is taking part in a conference, with commanding officers addressing subjects such as "How can we put the fun back in?", but what happens when one searches for yet more efficiency savings on top of the £6 billion a year efficiency savings that have already been made in the past 10 years? What happens to money for adventure training, for single service men's accommodation, and for people to be able to mount expeditions, which we want as many young officers as possible to undertake? All those things get squeezed.
When young officers, for example, plan exercises, they will find that there is no money for transport, and that the spares allocation is insufficient to support the exercises that they want to take their soldiers on. All those things impact on the quality of life and motivation of service men and Army officers and soldiers.
That financial pressure on the day-to-day administration of service men's life is administered the coup de grace by political correctness. That is where the strategic defence review is absolutely right to address the issue of ethos. We have to protect it, but the ethos of the Army is changing.
One of the problems is the fear of the chain of command being politically incorrect and prepared to stand up for the young men and women who are under its command. There are all sorts of issues. The one that I

want to address is that of integrating women into the armed forces and how difficult a challenge that is in units where it is happening, particularly the Royal Artillery, which, in the fighting echelon, is the furthest forward in relation to women making their presence felt.
What Ministers must understand is what the Army is for in peacetime. It is about training for war. What we try to ensure is that, when soldiers go into battle, they are inoculated against battle shock and the squalid, appalling conditions that they will find in war. We can replicate those conditions in peace, so that, when they face those conditions, they have trained for them and are still able to operate.
That is why our elite units are trained so toughly and to such a high standard. We are able to do that with units such as the Special Air Services, the Parachute Regiment and the Royal Marines, because we select an elite to undertake that quality of training; but the rest of the Army has to strive for those standards.
If we then impose on the rest of the Army a politically correct vision of how they should carry out their training, we are hobbling young officers and junior non-commissioned officers who are trying to achieve the highest training standards. They become frightened to lead and to manage, because they see their senior officers taking cover under what one might describe as a politically correct umbrella. They take cover behind regulations.
We all know what it means to run into a jobsworth. The more regulations and political correctness are imposed on the Army and other armed services, the more difficult it becomes for young men and women to lead, to take the initiative and to achieve the standards for which our armed forces are peerless in the world.
I use one example, of which I hope the Minister will take note, of one young man who showed initiative. His name is Major Milos Stankovic. One of the few Serbo-Croat speakers in the British Army, he worked for General Sir Michael Rose, among other commanders, directly in Bosnia. Major Stankovic's job, with a Serb father, strangely enough, was to win the confidence of Mr. Karadzic and General Mladic, and to get close to them, to enable General Rose to talk with authority on them and to find out what their intentions were.
We all know that the Americans had it in for General Sir Michael Rose. It appears that the CIA picked up various communications of Major Stankovic when he was carrying out his duties, doing his job for the British Army with initiative, possibly taking that initiative to the limits that a young officer should. When he came home to the UK to go on an Army staff course, he was arrested during a lecture. He has spent more than a year being investigated by the Ministry of Defence police, which is plainly totally out of its depth in conducting an investigation that will, I assume, involve signals intelligence, the CIA, MI5 and MI6 and goodness knows what other agencies.
If after a year—frankly, if after a month—a case could not be brought against Major Stankovic, it should be dropped. This is a young man who was doing his duty for his country and whose career has been sacrificed because the MOD police have been unable to carry out a proper investigation.
I use that as an example of the sort of initiative that is shown by young men and young officers, but then the umbrella goes up and everyone hides from the


responsibility, saying, "It is all sub judice. We cannot do anything about it." That is what happens when young men show initiative and their service and Ministers do not protect them. What message does it send to other members of the armed forces?
Homosexsuality poses a serious threat to the future ethos of the armed forces. There is an existing modus vivendi. Of course there are homosexuals in the armed forces, but, "Don't ask, don't tell," is effectively what we have. If their homosexuality is invisible to other people, it is not an issue, but the moment we change the rules and impose a right for people to be overtly homosexual in the armed forces, in platoons of infantry and in ships, we have begun to undermine the essential fabric that goes to make up the necessary ethos that makes men fight for each other. Of course, we are most concerned with the fighting echelon, where that necessary team work has to exist. I urge hon. Members to listen to the armed forces, because they are the ones whose ethos is under threat from this change.
If Ministers proceed with this change, the one thing that they will have to deliver is single service men's accommodation of en-suite bathrooms, and single accommodation for every service man in the armed forces. That is going to be a fabulously big bill. That would be an absolute minimum requirement.

Mr. Reed: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, because of homophobia within the armed forces, we should not have homosexuals? Because there is racism in the armed forces, is he suggesting that we do not have black and Asian people in for the same reason?

Mr. Blunt: I am not for a moment making that suggestion. There is no equivalence between racism and homosexuality. It is impertinent of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that there is.
Having dealt with my worries about the threats to the ethos and the policy of those who serve in the Regular Army, I turn to the Territorial Army. When I heard the Under-Secretary speak this morning, I wondered what planet he was on. He told us that the proposals for the TA were good news. That contrasts with the view of the vice-chairman of the council of the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association, Colonel Putnam, who told the House of Commons Select Committee on Defence:
the announcement of the SDR was a black day for the Territorial Army and we are now very concerned as to what the final structure will look like.
Ministers should understand that their proposals for the TA are strategically, politically and administratively wrong. In the words of the Defence Committee, unanimously supported by all its members—including seven Labour Members—they are "misconceived".
I received a letter from Colonel Putnam yesterday. Ministers should be aware of what is happening to members of TAVRA and the TA as they try to put Government proposals into action. Colonel Putnam wrote:
Over the last two weeks the situation has deteriorated in that 'horse trading' is now being conducted over the identification and selection of TA centres for sale to meet the now reinforced requirements of proceeds from the sale of TA Centres hitting the target for the budget for the fiscal year 1999/2000.

The rush for selection is now 'carving up' the plans made and submitted to date. In other words, there is pressure to identify TA Centres that can be sold quickly, ignoring the footprint and defence solutions. Whilst this confirms clearly that fiscal pressures are driving the TA and other elements of the SDR, it has placed everyone involved in the process both within this Association and the chain of command in a position where we can no longer be honest with our Volunteers, our MPs, employers, civic authorities and all others interested in defence and the Reserves.
That is where the appalling proposals for the TA have led. I hope that, if the Minister cannot rescue the situation, he will at least ameliorate it.
I conclude by becoming a little parochial. I am concerned about what is happening to the Territorial Army in the south-east. Current proposals suggest the TA will have 970 all ranks across four counties in the south-east. That is a reduction of 48 per cent. If the proposals were based properly on a footprint of our population, the south-east would have some 2,756 volunteers for the TA, instead of the dismal number proposed. Colonel Putnam's letter concludes:
we are in danger of having been forced to design a TA, particularly for the Infantry and Royal Engineers, that is not viable as it will lack opportunity which will increase turnover and will not, over a period of time, be worth joining.
In last week's debates on the strategic defence review, the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) hoped that the engineering unit in his constituency would survive. The proposals will take five regiments of engineers out of the TA order of battle—and that is not to mention the proposals to destroy the yeomanry and the infantry. If stories about the appalling names to be given to successor units—such as the Home Counties battalion—are true, I fear that they will lack any cohesion or esprit de corps.

Mr. Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that some motive may lie behind these suggestions? In a few years, when the turnover and the number of vacancies on the establishment have increased, Ministers will be able to get rid of the remainder, because it is under strength.

Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We should have learnt that lesson already from what has happened to the Regular Army in trying to manage the reductions from "Options for Change". There was a widespread impression that the Army no longer needed recruits because it was downsizing. In fact, the redundancies that took place were intended to ensure that the Army retained a proper structure of age, rank and experience. We are in danger of sending the same message about the TA. if the units cannot offer people the loyalty of serving alongside their mates, that will be highly deleterious.
The TA centre in Reigate is going to close, along with the field troop of 127 Field Squadron, which is part of one of the five regiments of engineers that will go. That will have an effect on the associated Army cadet force hut in Reigate. Lieutenant Graham Cromer, who leads that ACF detachment, has told me the benefits that the ACF receives from collocation with the TA. They include support from instructors, visits to see adult members of the TA at work, seeing equipment, and the opportunity to train with the TA. The ACF and TA can also jointly mount recruiting exercises. Reigate has a. 22 range administered by the ACF, and used by other ACF detachments and Reigate grammar school combined cadet force. All that will go if the site is sold.
The Defence Committee was told that it would cost £130,000 on average to replace each cadet hut. If 150 units are threatened, that adds up to an enormous sum, for which no provision has been made. While they wait for their huts to be rebuilt, the units will begin to disintegrate. The ACF lives on the enthusiasm of its volunteer leaders, both military and civilian. When they are dispossessed, the Government's good intentions and the words of the Under-Secretary about the value of the ACF as a youth movement will fall apart.
I am sorry to have detained the House so long, but I hope that hon. Members will understand. The Army is an institution of which I am fiercely proud. I want it to be protected. Its fate lies in the hands of Ministers, and particularly in those of the Minister of State. We look to him to ensure that, when his term of office ends, the condition of the Army is at least as good it is today—if not better.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I shall ask the Minister some brief questions on personnel management matters, but first I should reply to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who implied that no one on the Labour Benches or their families had any military experience. I am proud that my father, who served with an infantry regiment, was awarded the Military medal for an act of bravery in the field. For my part, I have the honour—which some would call dubious—of being the only Member of Parliament who served in the Royal Military police. I know that the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) had some association with that fine body of men and women.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) has left the Chamber, because her intervention on the European dimension was interesting. I believe that circumstances will force the European Union to develop a defence dimension because America is turning in on itself. One day, growing pressure in the USA will result in military disengagement from European defence structures. I am sorry that no member of the Scottish National party is here because we could have been entertained to a disquisition on the founding of a Scottish army after independence next May. Perhaps we will hear more of those plans closer to then.
I have some concerns about the Government's personnel policies. I have often seen our soldiers in Northern Ireland performing their arduous duties commendably. I think that I told you not long ago, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that while in south Armagh late last year, I saw some young Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders guarding the border there in difficult circumstances. I was in the company of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), whose constituent I am while living in London. I was proud to see those lads. I am talking about teenagers who were engaged in the war against the vicious fascist terrorists who claimed that they were conducting a military campaign. How absurd and obscene it is to argue that they were conducting a military campaign in a mature parliamentary democracy. Some of those youngsters were constituents of ours. I have seen our young soldiers in places such as Bosnia. I was proud of the way in which they too have performed their difficult task.
Speaking as an MP, and an ex-MP, I believe that our infantrymen make excellent United Nations peacekeepers. They are among the finest, alongside the Irish and others,

including some from impoverished countries that put up soldiers to serve in peacekeeping forces. It reflects badly on America that it fails to pay its dues to the United Nations for peacekeeping operations.
On personnel issues, I have had numerous representations from constituents and others in the west of Scotland on the Territorial Army. The decisions will have to be implemented sensibly and tactfully. Cadet forces in the west of Scotland and elsewhere in Scotland—I leave English Members to argue their case—are in the main poorly equipped. I do not blame that on a Government who have been in office for only 15 months. I made the same complaint in opposition. Young lads and lasses are dead keen to serve in the cadet force but they are given equipment that is nothing short of a disgrace. Something must be done or their enthusiasm and motivation will be blunted.
I am not too unhappy that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) is not here. I want to engage in conflict with him on whether the major generals should be in Edinburgh or York. It makes good tactical sense for them to be in Edinburgh. I am not being biased or parochial. I am not speaking disinterestedly, but Ministers must consider closely the case for Edinburgh. I say that with all sympathy to my hon. Friends from Yorkshire.
As a young military policeman, I saw the bullying of young recruits. It still happens, unfortunately. When 17 or 18-year-olds, scores of miles from home—perhaps away from home for the first time in their lives—are bullied by non-commissioned officers or older soldiers, it is no wonder that so many quit in their first year. Not so long ago, I came across the case of a young girl soldier, a constituent of mine, who was subjected to dreadful harassment partly because of her accent. Her English corporal and squad instructor said that he could not understand her accent and made her life miserable, to the extent that she understandably quit and came back home. Every effort must be made to eliminate bullying and the bullies must receive condign punishment when convicted of such behaviour. Similarly, racial harassment must be eliminated. There is a perception in ethnic groups that youngsters in the forces are likely to suffer from such intimidatory behaviour.
Promotion must be based only on merit, talent and potential. With respect to all the ex-officers among the Conservatives, as a young national service man I had much greater respect for my regimental and company sergeant majors than for some of the chinless wonders with two pips on their shoulders. Many other ex-national service men would say the same.
The senior NCO is the backbone of any unit. No former officer can deny that fact. I thought that some of my senior NCOs were first-class people whom I would follow anywhere, even though I was a reluctant national service man; some of the officers—God forbid. I would not have crossed the street with them. Our Army must become classless. The youngster from Greenock with the west of Scotland accent should not be discriminated against and the Afro-Caribbean youngster should not be discriminated against in taking a commission and promotion into the officer ranks.
What is the Ministry of Defence's policy on offering re-engagement to soldiers convicted of the most serious crimes? Hon. Members in the previous Parliament may


recall that I complained about the re-engagement of Private Clegg. Have Guardsmen Fisher and Wright been offered re-engagement? Will the three young soldiers convicted of the dreadful rape and murder of a young Danish girl in Cyprus be offered it when they complete their prison sentences? I hope that the Minister can answer because I for one do not believe that soldiers convicted of heinous crimes should be re-engaged after they have served their terms of imprisonment. The forces are better off without them.
I want to speak on behalf of those young soldiers and others who took part in the nuclear tests. I am one of the very few hon. Members to have visited Maralinga in the state of South Australia. I saw the test sites and spoke to Australian veterans. While they said that their compensation was not adequate, it is reasonable to suggest to the Minister, as I did to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), that Australian ex-service men have been treated more sympathetically than our nuclear test veterans. Those veterans, whose numbers decrease all the time, should be given more sympathetic consideration by the MOD and other Departments.
More needs to be done, particularly for our young recruits. The role of the NCO is to look after his or her young recruits, and to ensure that a youngster coming into a regiment is not bullied or subjected to racial harassment. All ranks—officers and NCOs—need to be educated if we are to eliminate racial harassment and the pernicious problem of the bullying of young recruits. Much more, as I say, needs to be done by all concerned.

Mr. Peter Brooke: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman). He referred to our mutual experiences in Northern Ireland. One of the incidental pleasures of serving with him on such trips is to hear of his experiences in the royal military police. The House was the better for his being able to share some of that experience with us today. He promised to be brief, and through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can tell my colleagues on the Opposition Benches who are still waiting to speak that I shall be even briefer.
I must immediately declare an interest in that on Monday I lunched in the mess of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers in the Tower of London, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King). It was the annual luncheon for the Lord Mayor of London, which goes back to the link with the City of London Fusiliers. I was not lobbied, but I cannot say whether the same was true of the member of the Government who was present—the other parliamentary guest—the Under-Secretary of State for Health.
I should not sail under false colours. I am wearing a Sapper tie, and I am proud to do so. As a schoolboy, I rose to the rank of cadet captain, and one of the proudest moments of my life was to command 600 cadets for inspection by Lieutenant General Sir Brian Horrocks 46 years ago. I am old enough to have been trained on a drill book that instructed me on what to do with my sword in the event that I met His Majesty the King in a narrow trench.
I actively thought of becoming a regular soldier, but I damaged my knee in basic training for national service, and was eventually invalided out with a disability pension. Like Dr. Watson's old war wound from the Afghan wars, I still feel an occasional twinge.
When my brother, who is now a Lord Justice of Appeal, had a Sapper interview, he was asked whether he had had any relatives in the corps, and he replied, "My brother, Sir, was an acting lance corporal and my great-grand-uncle was a lieutenant general, both in the corps, and I hoped I might end up somewhere in between." I shall return to the Sappers before I conclude.
My first purpose in rising to speak is to support the Territorial Army units in my constituency. I did not speak in last week's debate on the strategic defence review, but on the second day I intervened in the opening speech of the Minister for the Armed Forces, who opened today's debate, and he gave me a helpful response, to which I shall return later.
The tradition of part-time military service in my constituency is long standing. Artillery lane in Spitalfields, on the edge of the City, goes back to a lease to an artillery company under the Tudors. In the 17th century, the Tower Ordnance and the Honourable Artillery Company both claimed that the land was theirs, and the HAC, with whom my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) has so distinguished an association, moved to its present ground in Finsbury in 1641.
At the Westminster end of my constituency, Artillery row, where Politico's now stands, is derived from butts erected there in the reign of Elizabeth. The trained bands go back to the reign of her father. They were affiliated to what is now the HAC. They were the forerunners of the militia and today's TA. Four thousand of them were inspected by Queen Elizabeth at Greenwich in 1585. Under James I, they became four regiments under the command of the Lord Mayor. Their role in the civil war is well known. William III, in renewing their charter, insisted on a continuance of the HAC link. Only in 1794 were they reorganised as the City of London militia.
Similarly, the Military Company was founded in Westminster in 1615, and was modelled on the Spitalfields Artillery Company. It was commanded by a professional soldier, and trained in three and a half acres of land acquired in the north-west part of St. Martin's field. Their service lasted well nigh a century.
Gradually, the militia and yeomanry emerged. I draw attention to a personal constituency link that goes back to my most distinguished predecessor, Charles James Fox. Despite his falling out with his erstwhile ally Edmund Burke, who had reacted against the French revolution, Fox continued to argue passionately for the maintenance of the militia as a key component of the nation's defences against the French.
I shall now encourage the House by fast forwarding two centuries to my intervention last week in a passage in the speech of the Minister for the Armed Forces in which he was discussing ethnic recruitment. My constituency TA interest lies in the London Scottish Regiment, which is historically located in Westminster, based in Horseferry road, and is now part of the London Regiment; and in the Royal Green Jackets, which is headquartered in Mayfair. Other parliamentary colleagues represent the London Regiment's drill halls in Battersea,


Camberwell, Hornsey, Edgware, Balham and Chelsea. Overall, the London Regiment has a 12 per cent. ethnic strength, with 9 per cent. in the London Scottish, which has a very strong expatriate element.
As to the Royal Green Jackets, 20 per cent. in the regiment's volunteer arm in London are of ethnic origin. Perhaps still more remarkable is the fact that 43 per cent. of the cadet corps in Mayfair, to whom the TA link is so important, are of ethnic origin, and half their cadet corps contingent are from single parent families or broken homes. We should all thank God for the structure, decently administered, that the Army gives to those particular young lives.
When I intervened in the Minister's speech last week, I asked him what moral the MOD drew from these statistics. He acknowledged that lessons were to be learned from this experience. Because mine is an inner-city seat, I would be exceptionally sad to see those lessons and that achievement threatened by the Government's cull of the TA. I recognise that a Mayfair property offers the same temptation for development as the training grounds in Spitalfields and St. Martin's field offered in the 17th and 18th centuries, but it would be a tragedy, given the ethnic recruiting achievement and advancement of my constituents, if those notable assets were jeopardised when ethnic recruiting is properly so important. The Horseferry road site is not a similar prize, as it is only leased to the MOD in a forerunner arrangement to the private finance initiative.
I understand that one motivation for the reforms was to establish units nearer where people live rather than where they work. I have remarked before that 22 per cent. of the employed population of Greater London work in my constituency, and my 73 Greater London parliamentary colleagues are good enough to look after the other 78 per cent. If that is the pattern of people's lives in Greater London—and if it produces the great advances in ethnic recruiting in an inner-city seat to which I have referred—then working against the grain of London behaviour constitutes a massive risk.
I want to say a loyal word on behalf of the Sappers. I have not been directly briefed by them, so the Minister may correct what may have been a wrong impression on my part, although I have received reinforcement from my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). My understanding of the review is that the third combat group is faced with a cut of half its Sapper element.
I mentioned earlier my Sapper great-grand-uncle, who became a lieutenant general. He was a bachelor who served in one imperial territory after another across the 19th century empire. I have his watercolours of the Crimea. Later, in Mauritius, where he was an early photographer, he helped build the roads, the port, the prison and the hospital. I mention that echo of more than a century ago to make the point that the Sappers are a major resource for civil works, which in civil life we would miss if the Sappers were cut to ribbons.
I feel immense vicarious pride in our soldiers. When I served in Northern Ireland, 4/5 Commando was serving in south Armagh in the winter of 1990–91, and saw its immediate next service in Iraq looking after the Kurds in the aftermath of the Gulf war. President Bush sent a four-star general to see how the military support for disadvantaged civilians was going. On his return to Brussels, the American general called Field Marshal

Sir Richard Vincent to say how impressed he had been with 4/5 Commando, adding that he had never seen soldiers handle civilians so sensitively. He went on to ask where we found them and where we trained them. Sir Richard replied simply, "We train them in south Armagh." God knows, we must all hope that the need for training or any activity in south Armagh is a thing of the past, but the episode is an index of the pride that I feel.
I close humbly with that legendary address by the padre to the departing battalion in the first war. He said:
God go with you everywhere. I can only come as far as the station.

Mr. John Smith: It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). I apologise for having to slip out during his distinguished speech; I know that I must have missed a great deal. It is also a privilege to have an opportunity to speak twice in a week on such an important subject as the great British Army. It is good that the Government have found time for this debate at this point in the parliamentary timetable and just before Remembrance Sunday. I can think of no better topic than the British Army to discuss at this time.
As a Welsh Member of Parliament, I am conscious of a further privilege. Wales has a fine tradition that stretches back as far as the bowmen of Gwent at the battle of Agincourt, through to those courageous receivers of the Victoria Cross at Rorke's drift and right up to today, when I believe that the Welsh Guards were part of the guard of honour for the visiting president of Argentina. That is a symbol of just how great and how professional our forces are and what a fine job they do. Mr. Simon Weston—that veteran of the Falklands war, who was so badly scarred and damaged outwardly, but inwardly is a courageous man who has done so much since the war—had positive and constructive comments to make this week on the visit of the president.
We can be optimistic about the future of the British Army following the Government's strategic defence review. In general, the review has been good news for the Army after such a long period of changes, reviews and cuts, which created a great deal of the instability and uncertainty that has affected morale in the Army. The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) referred to the low morale in the Army. I believe that it was due mostly to the way in which uncertainty affected professional men and women doing such a good job.
The truth of the matter is that yes, there was a peace dividend; there was a downsizing of our forces. I will be even more generous and say that Ministers in the Tory Government carried out those reviews with the best of intentions. However, the outcomes often bore no relationship to the intentions following the cold war. The reviews did not arrive at strategic solutions to the situation in which we found ourselves. They were a way in which to reduce the defence budget by not touching the commitments of our armed forces one iota, but cutting their resources and the wherewithal to achieve their goals in the world.

Mr. Blunt: The hon. Gentleman will, therefore, join us in deprecating the fact that further changes are to be


imposed on the Army, including the requirement to achieve efficiency savings and a further £900 million a year cut in the defence budget.

Mr. Smith: Not at all—for two reasons. We are providing a stable budgetary environment for a minimum of three years—something that has never been done before. More importantly, we are providing a strategic environment for our forces which will last for the next two decades. That is exactly what service personnel in the Army have been wanting to see for so long.
Previous reviews turned out to be death by a thousand cuts. You cut here, you cut there, whether it was "Options for Change" or "Front Line First". Manpower and resources were cut and our defence commitments in the world were increased. No wonder some of the boys and girls in the services suffered such a decline in morale. They were doing continuous tours of duty. They were coming back from serving in one part of the world to go and serve in Northern Ireland. No sooner were they back than they were called back again. Let me not for one minute question the professionalism and service that they provide for this country.
Let me repeat something that I said last week; it happens to be true. We have the best army in the world, and we want to keep it like that. It may not be the biggest, but it is the best. For the past 18 months, I have represented this Parliament on the North Atlantic Assembly. That gives me the privilege of visiting other NATO countries and talking regularly to parliamentarians from those countries, including the United States and Canada. I hear nothing but praise for what our services do throughout the world—for example in Bosnia, where British soldiers are leading the way. One minute they have their sleeves rolled up and are working with the local community and the next, they are manning tanks at the other end of the town or village to defend people living in that area. They provide an example to the other forces who have gone there. I hear nothing but praise for the Army and I think that it should receive nothing but praise from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I understand the concerns about the bad publicity that some of our service personnel get. There have been damaging episodes, but let us not get it out of context. Let us not lose sight of the fact that our service personnel's conduct and behaviour is far better than the average conduct of young people in the community. Service men and women set an example to young people in the community. That is why I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Government—[Interruption.] Heckle me if you like. This is the problem, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are talking about the British Army, and the Whips sit there heckling and trying to make fun of the services. It is disgraceful, but it is typical. Opposition Members claim to represent the interests of the British forces, but every member of the forces currently or previously serving knows damn well that he or she is always better off under a Labour Government. They are going to be better off under a Labour Government for the next 10 years.
We won the general election last year with a terrific mandate. Much of that mandate came from our armed forces, who had had enough of the Conservative Government. Little did we realise what damage the previous Government had done.

Mr. Blunt: I should like the hon. Gentleman to name the terms under which he thinks that the armed forces are better off under a Labour Government than they were under a Conservative Government. He should name his terms, and then we will examine them.

Mr. Smith: All of them. There is a better way: let us consider the legacy that we were left with. The Conservative Government cut the defence budget by almost half in real terms as a proportion of GDP during their period of office. The Conservatives cut the number of service personnel from almost 750,000 to 400,000. They made the biggest cuts ever seen in the defence capacity of this country. I would agree that all that would have been part of the peace dividend if they had reduced expenditure rationally and strategically, but they did not, and the result was overstretch, as several Opposition Members have admitted. The Labour Government inherited that overstretch, which was putting unfair pressure on personnel in the Army and the other services.
The previous Government's cuts meant that there was an absence of heavy lift capability—the ability to get our troops to the front line and support them once there. Medical services in the British forces were an absolute disgrace—almost non-existent. That was another unacceptable situation that we inherited. I could continue the list, but I do not wish to do so, because I believe that the strategic defence review has completely reversed the position.
I was delighted by the announcement last week that British service personnel will shortly wear uniforms in the community. I believe that that will make a far greater contribution to our recruitment efforts than we realise. Believe it or not, the last time I saw British service personnel in full dress uniform when off duty was when I was carrying out my responsibilities in connection with the North Atlantic Assembly in Moscow. As we walked through Red square, we saw three members of the Black Watch in full military dress—off-duty soldiers who were there as tourists. As they walked across the square, Russians flocked to look at the spectacle of some of the finest soldiers in the world—British soldiers. They were instantly recognised for what they were—Scots and soldiers. They won great praise, much to the consternation of the Red guards guarding Lenin's tomb, who were not at all happy.
Joking aside, when we see our fine young men and women, walking once again in uniform through the streets, it will give the finest example of what our forces do. That will encourage far more youngsters to recognise what the armed forces offer in terms of a career and future. I am sure that they will take advantage of those opportunities.
We have heard much about the Territorial Army—in fact, most of the speeches, with one or two fine exceptions, have been completely dominated by that subject. That is understandable: there are constituency interests throughout the country and Members of Parliament are bound to be concerned about their local


TA unit. However, if that is all the Opposition can question in the strategic defence review, we have little to be concerned about. How can Opposition Members question that the SDR was necessary? The nature of warfare has changed completely.

Mr. Paterson: As a Welsh Member of Parliament, is the hon. Gentleman not concerned about the rumours that the Royal Welsh Fusiliers will be almost eliminated as a TA unit in north Wales and that north Wales will be denuded of an Army presence?

Mr. Smith: The honest answer is, yes, I would be concerned, if such a decision undermined the new part the Territorial Army is to play in our strategic military role. Because of our fine military and regimental traditions, we in Wales have one of the highest recruitment rates to the Regular Army in the United Kingdom. An important military consideration within the terms of the SDR was the need to reorientate the role of the TA, and I know that such factors will be considered in the consultations that are taking place.
I believe that the thinking is that the two battalions—the two great cap badges—will be kept in Wales, north and south, although, as a result of the restructuring, they may be cut back in terms of company numbers within those battalions. When restructuring, quite rightly, takes place in line with the strategic defence review, I believe that the viability of the two regiments will remain to ensure that, in line with Government thinking, we maintain the same high levels of recruitment in Wales that are of such benefit to the Regular Army. I am confident that, within the terms of reference of the SDR, the Government will take into account those serious arguments and not the spurious arguments advanced today.
Under the review, the Army has to be restructured to provide it with a relevant role for the future, and not the partially irrelevant role it has played for the past 10 years, preparing for a war on the eastern plains of Germany—the wrong place, now that the boundaries of Europe have changed—that will not happen in the foreseeable future. The Army must be able to play a leading role in the world by being able to react quickly and to project power rapidly to trouble spots in support of international initiatives.

Mr. Key: In view of his particular expertise on the North Atlantic Assembly, will the hon. Gentleman give us the benefit of his views on the role of the Army in relation to Western European Union?

Mr. Smith: I should be delighted to, but I want to focus on only one or two specific issues relating to the Army, and there is insufficient time to digress.

Mr. Hancock: Before the hon. Gentleman moves away from the subject of the TA in Wales, I am sure that he will get the support of every hon. Member if his premonition—which appears to be well informed—about the end result in Wales is fulfilled. In that case, I am sure that he will be the first to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) on his campaign to preserve the TA in Wales. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will give heartfelt support to my hon. Friend's efforts to restore some credibility to the British Army in Wales, which will help the Labour Government.

Mr. Smith: Wales has done well from the strategic defence review in general. I have no idea what the final

outcome will be for the territorials, but I am confident that, within the terms of the review, we shall retain our battalions in Wales as viable entities.
Finally, I turn to a further benefit to Wales that may emerge from the review. Several hon. Members referred to the withdrawal of forces from Germany and the shortage of training locations in the United Kingdom. I tell Ministers that training facilities are available in the Principality, where forces relocating to the United Kingdom would be more than welcome. We are able to house military personnel and provide facilities for some of their activities.
The British Army and our other forces have a fine tradition. I am a former aircraftman and served alongside regular soldiers, and I have seen just how great they are. I confidently predict that, in the next 10 years, they will be even greater and an asset of which the United Kingdom can be proud. I should like to think that, on both sides of the House, hon. Members will be able to unite in ensuring that the strategic defence review is implemented fully, so that our forces may prosper in the future.

Mr. Robert Walter: The persistent theme in today's debate, and in last week's debate on the strategic defence review, has very much been the future of the Territorial Army. One of my concerns about the TA's future has been the somewhat secretive nature of the consultation exercise on it.
In last week's debate, the Secretary of State said that he was prepared to listen to hon. Members' concerns. However, officially, hon. Members should not be aware of the contents of the document on TA restructuring, which has not yet been placed in the public domain. In the excellent document prepared by the Library on the strategic defence review, Library staff seemed to show some concern about the document's existence. Although people seemed to know its contents, the document itself could not be mentioned. We therefore have to rely on the summation of the document that was printed a couple of weeks ago in The Sunday Telegraph.
I should like to deal with the specific case, in my own constituency, of the possible demise of the 4th battalion, Devonshire and Dorset Regiment, which is very much a part of the TA infantry. First, however, I should deal with the general problem of the review's handling of the TA infantry, and consider four possible consequences that the review and proposed measures may have on the TA infantry—on recruiting, reinforcement, regeneration and community links between the TA and local communities.
There is in the Army a natural balance between the Regular Army, the Territorial Army and the Army cadet forces. The proposals, particularly those affecting the infantry, will disturb that balance. I do not think that sufficient weight has been given, in either the SDR or the TA review, to the TA's role in Regular Army recruitment. Although that role is certainly a non-operational one, it is one that has been very much undervalued. If there is a reduced or no TA presence in large parts of the United Kingdom, the TA's recruitment role will be greatly diminished. The TA infantry personnel ceiling of 6,500 is woefully inadequate if the TA is to play any significant role in recruitment.
The reduced personnel ceiling will have a severe impact also on the support that is given to the Army cadet force, which is itself a traditional source of Army recruits.


More practically, the reduction will have a severe long-term impact on the number of instructors in the Army cadet force.
Hon. Members have already mentioned in this debate the TA soldiers who serve gallantly in Bosnia backing up the Regular Army. To reduce the TA is to reduce the pool of willing volunteers who are able to fill the shortfall in deployment of regulars. Further overstretching of regulars inevitably will have a negative impact on Regular Army training and morale if TA soldiers, especially TA infantrymen, are not available to reinforce them.
Traditionally, in times of conflict, the TA infantry has been the regenerative force. If the TA is reduced, that essential role also will be reduced. In a conflict, if we had speedily to increase the size of the Regular Army, the TA would be much less able to provide the base essential to do that if it were reduced or eliminated in parts of the United Kingdom.
I must also deal with community links which are an essential part of the TA. The TA is a key element in the relationship between the civil and military populations. Cutting the TA and reducing that experience of contact with the Army will have a fairly devastating effect, not only on the TA itself, but on the Army cadet force which performs the essential role of instilling the qualities of service, discipline and loyalty into many of our young people.
That leads me neatly to the 4th battalion, Devonshire and Dorset Regiment in my constituency. It is very much part of the local scene, but also of the Army establishment. Within the two counties of Devon and Dorset, we currently have five companies of the TA in Exeter, Plymouth, Paignton, Dorchester and Poole. We have affiliated combined cadet forces at 12 schools—two in Lyme Regis, one in Tiverton where both my sons served in the combined cadet force, one in Wimborne and Iwerne Minster in my constituency, two in Exeter, and one in Dorchester, Plympton, Bruton, Plymouth and Sherborne. That represents quite a spread across the two counties. We have six companies of the Army cadet force spread across 58 detachments. In my constituency, A and C companies are represented at Blandford, Gillingham, Shaftesbury and Wimborne.
The strategic defence review is coy about the future of the combined cadet force and the Army cadet force. However, if we consider the SDR and what we believe to be in the TA restructuring document. it is clear what is going to happen to the five companies of TA soldiers in the Devons and Dorsets—there will be not five companies but two. In my county, there will be just one and, to add insult to injury—if The Sunday Telegraph article is correct—it will no longer be a company of the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment anyway. It will be renamed and reformed as something called the South West Battalion.
I imagine that, in the view of some civil servant, such a name will fit neatly alongside the Government office for the south-west, the south-west regional development agency, the south-west regional chamber and the great move towards regionalism. However, these proposals destroy the Devon and Dorset family, or at least a very important part of the historic links between the soldiers and their community.
The combined strength of the volunteers in the 4th battalion and in the cadets is some 2,200 soldiers. They are all proud to wear the cap badge of their county regiment, and are proud of the regimental band which is very much part of the TA, but which nevertheless serves the whole regiment. Why is it that in new Britain under new Labour, it is not very hip to be in the TA, not very cool to be a cadet or, especially if we are to believe the proposals, not terribly cool to be part of a county regiment? That is poppycock. It is another example of the Government's insensitivity to what happens in vast swathes of rural Britain.
The strength of the TA is its local associations. In the debate on the SDR, the Minister talked of greater integration between the TA and the Regular Army. If I take my own county TA regiment as an example, the proposals will break the link between the TA and the regulars. At the moment, the 4th battalion, the TA, operates alongside, and under the same command structure as, the 1st battalion, the regulars. That will be wholly destroyed. We shall destroy the conduit which is not only part of our community and county structure, but part of the British Army.
When he opened today's debate, the Minister said that the proposals were based on the principle that the TA was to be integrated and relevant. Having considered the proposals for the county that I represent in part, they are pretty disintegrated and will make the TA pretty irrelevant. That is because there will be so little of the TA in the county to be seen.
I make a plea to the Minister on behalf of the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment and of all county regiments with TA links. We should keep these TA units with their county regiments. I believe that the ceiling of 6,500 men for the TA infantry is inadequate, and that it will lead to manning problems in the regular Army. If anything comes of this debate and last week's, I hope that Ministers will reconsider the overall numbers of TA infantry and their links with local communities, particularly local communities in rural Britain.

Mr. Bruce George: I had not intended to speak in the debate, having had a good run last week. I did not want to replicate my speech of last week. However, I thought it was important to participate this evening because I would not want to give the Whips the opportunity to say, "Let's abandon this single-service-debate concept because the debate petered out before the time when it was supposed to end." It is important that we sustain sufficient debates on defence because defence remains a vital subject.
Defence debates are rather like London Transport buses in that we wait a long time for them to come and finally, when they do arrive, they arrive en masse. I understand that there may be a debate next week on the Royal Navy, which will prove the point.
I had an invitation to join a number of people in the Guildhall this evening to celebrate the arrival of President Menem. However, there was the Army debate and I was organising a function in the Jubilee Room with the Royal British Legion. That meant that the world was spared the sight of me in a white tie and tails. Tailors were denied the £100 fee that I would have paid to participate in that unique occasion.
The debate is important. I have been rather embarrassed by some of the speeches of Opposition Members. I recall making one of my early speeches on defence a long time ago in the mid-1970s, when I was not treated with discourtesy. I was not treated by Members on the Benches opposite mocking or sneering because, never having served in the armed forces, I was daring to participate in a debate where some Members thought, because they had served as majors in the catering corps, they had a depth of knowledge sufficient to pontificate like some latter-day Clausewitz on affairs of state.
I do not buy the argument that only those who have served in the armed forces or whose great, great, great-grandfathers served, have a monopoly of wisdom, concern or, dare I say, knowledge of defence issues. I welcome the contributions of Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe). I hope that he will participate regularly in these debates, despite the disgraceful way in which his speech was treated by some Opposition Members, with a pomposity that I found deeply repugnant.
The view seemed to be expressed that on day 1, 2 May, the armed forces suddenly declined and that hitherto they had been wisely led and funded by a group of people who made impeccable, perfect decisions. It seemed to be thought that, the moment the Labour Government came into office, pacifist, unilateralist thickos ruled the roost and brilliant men, like the drivers of black taxi cabs who regularly pontificate on all affairs of state, were denied the opportunity of making key decisions.
I looked at some of the reports produced by the Defence Committee in the last year of the Conservative Government to remind myself of those latter-day Clausewitzes and Churchills who had been responsible for our armed forces. Reports from the Session 1996–97 included one on the sale of the married quarters estate—not one that I would be particularly proud of if I was a Tory. Our third report was on defence medical services, about which they should feel distinctly embarrassed, if not humiliated.
I quoted from the report on defence spending last week. I offer no apologies for repeating our insistence that the defence spending plans set out in the 1996 Budget should at least be maintained in real terms in future years, because any further reduction would jeopardise the defence of the realm.
Our sixth report was on the latest developments on Gulf war illness—which, under the previous Government, were virtually nil. Then there was heavy lift. What heavy lift? There was prevarication on the future large aircraft. Is the Royal Air Force going to fly a concept? The Defence Committee must accept some responsibility, but the previous Government decided to go for the C130J, on which there was two years' delay. What about sea lift? If we wanted sea lift, we had to go to the open market and get the Ukrainians or the Poles to provide it. What happened to the merchant marine under the brilliant Conservative Government from 1979? It almost disappeared.
Some Conservatives argue that we should feel slightly ashamed because of the period in the 1980s when the Labour party was infected by a disease that it contracts every 30 years or so. We were cured and now the Government are sensible. I recall—although not from personal experience—periods about which Conservative

Members should have some humility. I remember reading about the British Army in the 1930s—denied equipment and led by officers who were not very well qualified, with a general staff as inept as they were during the period when, one Conservative Member has asserted, they were donkeys. In a vote of confidence in 1940, instigated by the Labour party and the Liberal party, Conservative Members either sat on their hands or voted for the Government of Neville Chamberlain. The Winston Churchill Government was established with the support of the Labour party, the Liberals and a handful of Conservatives who had had the courage to vote against their party leadership. When I am lectured about periods of humiliation for the Labour party, I ponder the periods in the past 50, 70 or 90 years of which neither party can be particularly proud. Some humility is appropriate on both sides.

Dr. Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is right to point to periods in which both parties behaved disgracefully, including the 1930s, when the Conservatives allowed themselves to be intimidated by a pacifist movement. The Labour party at the time was calling for even more disarmament than the Conservatives. The difference is that, when we got to the 1980s, the Conservatives had learnt the lesson of the 1930s, whereas the Labour party had to undergo the terrible defeats of 1983 and 1987 before abandoning unilateralism. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we have had to refer to the 1980s tonight only when challenges were unwisely directed against the Conservatives by Labour Members saying that they had nothing to be ashamed of?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Interventions must not be speeches.

Mr. George: I would not have objected if the intervention had been sensible. I defer to the ability of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) to penetrate the Labour party. Perhaps he should penetrate some history books and read about the Labour party. Ernie Bevin played a major role in destroying George Lansbury at the 1935 Labour conference. A. J. P. Taylor said that the subsequent Fulham by-election frightened the Tories out of what little sense they had. Labour Members in opposition and members of the trade union movement, who had seen their friends and comrades in Europe gaoled or murdered by the Nazis, saw the light much earlier than the Government of appeasement. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I should have a little seminar so that we can discuss who the guilty men were and distribute that guilt fairly evenly among political parties.

Dr. Lewis: rose—

Mr. George: I shall not give way again. I make the point because it is necessary to get over to Conservative Members that there is no history of perfection in their party.
When I came into Parliament, everyone recalled that Denis Healey in the 1960s was the best Secretary of State for Defence since the second world war. One recalls the previous Labour Government leaving office having spent an average of 4.9 per cent. of gross domestic product on defence. Yes, spending rose a little under the Tories after the iron lady came into office, but that peak was largely


due to funding the ships that were sunk in the Falklands war. Not long afterwards, the Conservative Government abandoned the commitment of the previous Labour Government to increase defence expenditure by 3 per cent. in real terms, in line with a NATO decision. Yes, defence spending declined following the end of the cold war, although I should point out to Conservative Members that it began to decline in 1985—four years before the cold war ended. I would willingly engage in a history seminar with anyone who wishes to take part.
I have enormous affection for the British Army despite never having served in it. The only time that I threatened to vote Conservative—a long, long time ago—was when they abolished conscription. That decision led to the gradual fading away of militarily experience among Members of Parliament. It is important to sustain an interest in the armed forces in the House so that, even though very few of us have served in them, we are still able to comprehend the defence interests of the country.
I have an immense admiration for British soldiers. I recall that, when I went to Bosnia with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) we saw British forces of quite amazing professionalism. The Defence Committee said that the King's Royal Hussars had an immense versatility. They drove Challenger 1 tanks, which were then in operation, and Warrior vehicles. They were engaged in peacekeeping and inspecting ammunition sites held by various "Entity Forces", operated in a public order environment and were involved in many community-based projects, many of which we saw. Those are British professional soldiers, who are now, thankfully, well led and reasonably well equipped—unlike those during many previous periods and decades.
To go back even further, I shall cite a man who is not quoted particularly frequently by any hon. Member, but who admired the armed forces even more. I should like to indulge in citing one short verse of poetry. I see a Conservative Member starting to snigger. Hon. Members will know the author, whose words I endorse. He said:

"There'll surely come a day
When they give you all your pay
And treat you like a Christian ought to do.
But 'til that day comes round
Heaven keep you safe and sound
And Thomas here's my great respect to you."
That is Rudyard Kipling's "Ode to Thomas Atkins".
Those people deserve better than they have got from politicians over the past 200 years—an era in which they were led by men who purchased their commissions. Ability to lead was ignored; ability to pay was supreme. In the 18th century, a War Minister had previously been drummed out of the Army for cowardice. Regiments were frequently raised in times of war, but when the war was over, they were disbanded within days.
The Army was led by men such as the Duke of Cambridge, a relative of Queen Victoria and a man of stupefying conservatism who vehemently and successfully opposed almost every reform proposed by politicians in the House and elsewhere. I hope that we are now in an era when all that is well and truly over.
I remind hon. Members that, during the cold war, the British Army of the Rhine was, as one respected academic who gave evidence to the Defence Select Committee said,

a "shop window" force. When we saw British efforts in the Gulf, noble though they were, and when we saw how difficult it was to run even Challenger 1 tanks on the sand, we realised what might have happened if the Army of the Rhine had been confronted by the massed armies of the Warsaw pact.
We must learn the lessons of the past. One lesson that we must learn and relearn is the critical importance of our relationship with the United States, and of our key membership of NATO. European defence institutions can supplement NATO, but they must never replace it. I hope that despite what, if I interpret it correctly, I read in The Sun—great newspaper though it is—I may reappraise what the Government are supposed to be saying. I hope that we never forget that lesson.
The strategic defence review was helpful. NBC—nuclear, biological and chemical—in-theatre defence is improving. It is important that we learn the lessons of Granby, and that we in the House support the continuation and refining of the concepts of readiness and deployability, and a joint rapid deployment force. It is right to support the establishment of a second logistical chain.
It is also important to have our own in-house sea lift capability. I hope that more will be done to enhance what is left of the British merchant marine, and that a decision will soon be made on the heavy-lift aircraft. Will it be a C17 or its equivalent? That would be a great addition to our heavy-lift capability. I hope that a decision will soon be made whether to stay with the plan for the future large aircraft, which is looking increasingly like the kind of mirage that one sees when walking in the desert, or to go in for something that the Royal Air Force can deploy reasonably quickly.
One of my hon. Friends was a little sceptical about British forces in Germany. I do not expect the Red army to come through the Fulder gap, but if we believe in the concept of rapid deployment, I should prefer substantial forces to be located in Germany rather than on this side of the channel.
I hope that the Minister will use every opportunity to improve our defence medical services. A great deal has been promised and, over the next few years, it will be time for that to be delivered. I also hope that the Government, and certainly the Defence Select Committee, will watch the new training cycle.
Over the years, the Defence Committee has inquired into a number of major procurement failures. I hope that smart procurement will at least diminish the likelihood of defence projects going hopelessly over budget, being hopelessly delayed or, when they are finally delivered to the Army, the Air Force or the Navy, failing to achieve the objectives that they were designed to achieve. One of the areas we shall look at is Bowman.
The Select Committee will explore what progress is being made on Gulf war syndrome. We are collectively anxious about what will happen in terms of the future of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I am pleased to say that we will hold a public hearing on 2 December on a subject on which the Select Committee is unanimous, as is most of the House of Commons—we will take evidence from the Minister for the Armed Forces on the "consultation" that has been, or will be, undertaken on the Territorial Army. Whatever the Government say, the issue will not go away.
I hope that the Government have the good sense, belatedly, to do what the previous Government did under immense pressure—that is, to cancel a number of proposed mergers. It was difficult for Malcolm Rifkind to turn Government policy on its head, but I believe that it was done for the best of motives. I hope that there will be some add-back to our armed forces, and soon.
In conclusion, let me say that we have so much of which we can be proud about our Army and our armed forces. We have heard of cases of bad behaviour, drunkenness and brutality, but they involve only a tiny percentage of those who serve in our armed forces. These are young men and women—and some who are not so young—who work for a pay scale that most people would run away from. They work hours that any trade unionist would instantly organise a campaign against. In some parts of the world, they live in accommodation that pigs would be reticent about. Those people and their spouses—who face enormous strain—suffer, in some cases, public ridicule and indifference.
I do not wish to quote Kipling again but
when the guns begin to shoot",
they are the "despised people" who fight. It is not us—we are safe and secure in our homes, protected by our armed forces. It is those men and women who go out and run the risk of death. We owe them an enormous debt, and we should hold them in immense admiration. It is incumbent upon us to provide properly for our armed forces, to give them proper training and equipment and to ensure that they are well led, and wisely led, at all levels.
Historically, we have been derelict in our duties. I hope that the strategic defence review will achieve what we all want to see, regardless of political affiliation—armed forces which we can afford and which, every now and again, abandon their peacekeeping operations and those activities that are not particularly violent so that we can test how wise we have been in equipping them. If we have been wise, they will perform their duties well and will be successful.
There have been times in our history when we have believed that there was no requirement for well-funded armed forces. When the crisis comes, men go off to fight wars in faraway places and suffer death from war and illness. Who is ultimately responsible for their plight? It is Governments and Parliaments. I hope that we shall serve our country and our armed forces to such a degree that, when they are called upon to put their lives to the test, we can say that we did what was necessary.

Mr. Bob Russell: Although we obviously ignore history at our peril, I wish to concentrate on the present and the immediate future. I must draw the Minister's attention to the fact that I represent one of the premier division garrison towns and, in addition to the soldiers, I represent their wives and families. There are approximately 3,500 troops and 5,500 wives and dependants in Colchester.
I want the Minister to organise a survey and a complete audit of married quarters. The previous Government, in one of the most wicked privatisations, disposed of Army housing stock in the build-up to the last general election. The Government and the Ministry of Defence have a responsibility. We have been discussing recruitment and retention: a high standard of accommodation for the

families of those in the services, as well for single men in barracks, is of critical importance. I want an assurance that the Minister will arrange for a survey and audit of the state of married quarters.
Reference has been made to the future of the Territorial Army, and I certainly endorse all the sentimental reasons given for retaining a strong civilian-military link. I would argue the case for the TA, but it has to evolve to have a meaningful role for the 21st century. All that enthusiasm and voluntary effort can be put to good use, but it must evolve.
Recruitment could be encouraged through the Army cadets. It is all very well for the Government to say that they support the cadet movement, but its budget has been cut and is insufficient. If more money were put into the cadets, more young men and women would be encouraged to join and might well go into the armed forces. Although we have heard that recruitment is up on the figure that the Government inherited from the previous Government, I think that the Minister will confirm that the complement of the British Army is still more than 3,000 below what it should be. We must increase recruitment as well as retention, and giving the cadet movement a boost is one way to do so. The Government would thereby be following the spirit of the Home Secretary's attempts—in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998—to encourage young people to lead more meaningful lives and the efforts of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to encourage people to lead fruitful lives. More investment in the cadet forces would contribute to those goals.
I wish to draw attention to 24 Airmobile Brigade. The rumours are flying around. Perhaps the Minister can confirm or deny them. It is reported that the airborne elements of 5 Airborne Brigade, including two Parachute Regiment battalions, will be grouped with 24 Airmobile Brigade to form 16 Air Assault Brigade. By 2005, the new brigade will include three Army Air Corps regiments. However, we are not being told where the new brigade will be located.
I suggest that there have been behind-the-scenes manoeuvres to ensure that the Parachute Regiment stays in Aldershot. If so, how will the new brigade operate if 24 Airmobile Brigade, as we now know it, is to remain in Colchester? It would be helpful if the Minister said that the 16 Air Assault Brigade would indeed be based in Colchester; at a stroke, that would remove the many rumours and provide stability for all the members of the forces who are to form the new brigade. I welcome the Secretary of State to the Chamber and hope that he, too, can assure the House that the 16 Air Assault Brigade will be based at Colchester.

Mr. Owen Paterson: The Army is undermanned by 5,000 people and turnover is high—15,000 people a year—yet we are planning to cut the number of people in the Territorial Army, the Regular Army's main source of recruitment. In 1990, the TA consisted of 85,300 people. The current figure is 56,000, yet a dramatic drop to 40,000 is proposed.
That ignores history over the past centuries and more recently—the TA infantry fought alongside regular regiments in the Falklands and 10 per cent. of the forces in Bosnia consisted of the TA. It also ignores the experience of our closest allies. In the USA, two thirds of


artillery units will, by the end of 1999, be from the reserves. The highest-scoring tank unit in the Gulf war was the 4th US Marine Reserve Tank Battalion.
The aim is to save money. The Reserves currently cost £360 million and the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association costs £80 million, which is 2 per cent. of the defence budget. The aim is to save £69 million, or 0.3 per cent. of the defence budget.
I give two examples of why I do not think the measure will save any money. One of the highly skilled TA units that is to be abolished is 198 Field Park Squadron, the Royal Engineers Territorial Army—80 per cent. of its members are ex-Regular Army or independent TA. The turnover is very low—only 5 per cent.—and the unit is tightly knit. I give only one example of its skills. A two-mile relief road was needed at the Cultybraggan training camp in Scotland. The challenge was funked by regular engineer units, but 198 took the job on, designing and planning the road in eight weeks flat. The unit estimates that it has saved the Ministry of Defence £500,000 over the past three years by taking on jobs that otherwise would have gone to civilian contractors.
My other example is the Royal Yeomanry, which is the Army's only nuclear, biological and chemical reconnaissance regiment—the Regular Army contains no counterpart. If the Minister reads paragraph 102 of the strategic defence review, he will see that the Royal Yeomanry is to be replaced by a Regular Army unit. That is daft—450 TA soldiers at £45 a day, together with the permanent staff, cost the taxpayer about £1.9 million, whereas Regular Army soldiers at £15,500 a year would cost an additional £7 million. That would not mean any quality gain, as the unit has recently passed the American chemical defence establishment assessment with flying colours.
The Secretary of State—I am delighted that he has joined our deliberations—frequently uses the word "relevant", but what about the poisoning on the Tokyo underground? The people in the Royal Yeomanry are excellent and should be retained—that would save money.
I see no savings, but I see long-term damage to the Army. Some 40 per cent. of Regular Army recruits come from the TA and the Army Cadet Force. The 1,700 ACF detachments across the country depend on the local TA unit for support. In a sparsely populated rural county such as Shropshire, one cannot close the training units and expect young people to travel. They simply cannot. No matter how hard one tries to create an integrated transport system, it is not possible in my constituency, which has 98 villages.
In a metropolitan area a training hall can be closed and young people can get public transport, but in a rural area that is not possible. The result will be the removal of military presence in a county such as Shropshire. The rumoured move to cut Shropshire down to one company of TA, based in Shrewsbury, will be disastrous. The TA will be spread far too thin and will simply not be able to cover the large geographical distances. Once the presence is gone, the footprint demanded by the Select Committee will be lost for good.
The move to lose the cap badge will be catastrophic. There is a rumour that the new regiment will be called the Midlands Regiment. Who on earth will be loyal to the

Midlands Regiment? People are loyal to 5 Light Infantry, which has been there for hundreds of years, or to the Staffords. The regiments work like a family, and we have a record of success.
There is a real local role for the regiments: 18 to 22 per cent. of the LI are from the unemployed. A highly valued training framework is provided, giving civilians a role and a real purpose in life. I cannot express it better than my constituent, Major Hutchinson, who is chairman of the Ellesmere ACF detachment. He wrote to me in May, with some prescience, and said:
It is my belief that ACFs, and very possibly CCFs, will be unable to continue their splendid youth work if the TA is cut back by anything like the scale suggested in the 'leaks' to the press. The Ellesmere ACF is the only organisation in the town, outside of schools, which offers opportunities for our young people to develop all of their non-academic talents to the full.
Furthermore, the TA has a real civil defence role. Unexpected events catch one behind the ear like a wet sandbag. That is a relevant phrase tonight, because as we have been talking the Rivers Severn and Vyrnwy have been rising. The brooks have backed up and in places they have breached. Two villages in my constituency, Melverley and Pentre, may be evacuated this evening. Shrewsbury may be inundated tomorrow.
This morning, I talked to Shropshire's county emergency planning officer, who was in the throes of debating whether to call in the military and put them on alert to help with the evacuation this evening. He said that it
gave him great comfort as a member of the local authority to know that the TA is available at short notice, but that the option might not be available in a year's time.
According to a Ministry of Defence statement on 25 September, a tri-service equal opportunities training centre will be set up at Shrivenham to
equip around 1,000 service and civilian equal opportunities advisers with the practical knowledge and skills needed to effectively advise and train their colleagues." 
In a phrase that I do not understand, it said that
the centre would encourage a 'top down bottom up' approach to equal opportunities awareness. 
Bluntly, I do not believe that there is prejudice in the Army or the TA. London's TA regiments have a higher proportion of non-whites than exists in the general population. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) most eloquently stated that the Royal Green Jackets have more than 20 per cent. non-whites.
This is political correctness gone mad. When resources are scarce, every pound should be spent training and equipping our armed forces so that they are in such a state of readiness as to deter an aggressor. In the event that war breaks out, as it did in the Gulf, all the Army's efforts should be concentrated on preparing to rain down on our enemies every possible devastation, to bring conflict to a halt as quickly as possible.
As a glaring example, today we have welcomed the democratically elected president of Argentina. He would not have come here but for the bravery of our men in the Falklands. They went up Mount Tumbledown in the teeth of enemy bullets, not because they had been on an equal opportunities course but because they had been trained to go through the horrors of armed conflict: something that many of us, luckily, have never been through—I hope that


we will never have to. Training, skill and equipment win wars, not equal opportunities awareness. Shrivenham is an expensive disgrace. It is politically correct gesture politics. It is a self-indulgent distraction. Our armed forces are being put at risk while savage, far reaching and ill-thought-out cuts are made to our reserve forces.

Mr. Keith Simpson: Once again, the debate on the Army has been wide ranging. We have been able to squeeze in some 15 speeches from Back Benchers, of whom, it will not surprise you to learn, Mr. Deputy Speaker, 11 have spoken out about the TA, and the majority have made the case for the Government to reconsider their proposals as outlined in the strategic defence review and in the pages of our press.
I welcome the commitment from the Minister for the Armed Forces to continue the three single-service debates. I think that we might profitably discuss how to focus those debates in future.
Eighty years ago today, British armies in France numbered 1.7 million men and women. On 28 October 1918, they were back almost to the positions on the Franco-Belgian border where the original British expeditionary force of 120,000 men—almost overwhelmingly regulars and regular reservists, although there were a few members of the TA—were deployed in August 1914. It is mind boggling because that is the largest group of armies that the British empire has ever deployed. We will never see their like again.
Eighty years ago tonight, the 2nd battalion, Manchester Regiment was preparing plans to cross a section of the Oise-Sambre canal. In the subsequent attempt, on 4 November, Lieutenant Wilfred Owen was killed. His parents received the news on the morning of 11 November as the church bells rang to celebrate the armistice. That is a world away from us today, but resonant with images, memories and traditions for today's generation and for the modern British Army.
A number of hon. Members have been at the reception given this evening by the British Legion. I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and other hon. Members about the British Legion's work and the work done by SSAFA—the Soldiers' Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association. I have the honour of being one of the parliamentary members of SSAFA' s council.
All hon. Members who have spoken have emphasised the professionalism of the modern British Army, its very high reputation, and the stress and strain placed on today's families owing to overstretch and frequency of postings overseas—yet that is not new. What is perhaps new is the fact that service men and their families are no longer prepared just to accept it. Because they are volunteer armed forces, they will ultimately talk with their feet; so what Governments have to do is to make certain that, as far as possible, their time in the Army is made as fair as possible, and they have some idea of when their postings will take place. Alternatively, we have to restrict what we want to do with our armed forces.
It is not an either/or. This Government and previous Governments have attempted to square the circle. Yes, from 1989, Conservative Governments did cut our armed forces and I never heard a word from any of the then Opposition parties that we should maintain our armed

forces at their former strength. I observed members of the then Opposition parties from the Box as a special adviser. And I did not hear them say that we should maintain our armed forces at that level.
Several hon. Members have referred to the British Army's contribution to the Gulf war. We were able to make that contribution because the British Army of the Rhine, the RAF Germany and the Royal Navy had a large enough critical mass. We should face the fact that the critical mass of our Army today imposes major limitations on what it can do. The positions outlined by the strategic defence review, of a one-shot deployment of a large division or of trying to maintain two brigades overseas at the same time, will be extremely difficult to sustain over any lengthy period without having to call up reserves or thinking about using large numbers of Territorial Army soldiers. I am sure that Ministers are only too well aware of that fact.
Our task is to hold the Government to account for the wide range of UK defence policy—financial resources, weapons, equipment, welfare and support facilities. Members of Parliament should also hold the Army to account for how it carries out its professional duties and manages itself as one of the great public services. I entirely endorse what the Chairman of the Select Committee said about not having had to serve in the armed forces in order to take a view on them. I did not agree with all that was said by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), but he made a thoughtful contribution. However, the recent service in the Army of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) helped him to make a forceful and powerful contribution to the debate.
We must consider the Army in the wide context of the strategic defence review. The SDR must in turn be considered against a real cut in the defence budget. Ministers are aware of the enormous resource constraints. The debate about the Territorial Army is not just about making it modern and usable. Like other hon. Members, I have always argued that the TA cannot be set in aspic. It is too expensive to be a museum piece, and the men and women who serve in it would not want it to be one. We know from evidence to the Select Committee and from those involved in the Regular Army and the Territorial Army that cuts in the TA are funding the expeditionary role of the Regular Army, particularly its logistic chain.
That poses a major problem for the Minister of State. We are in a consultation period during which difficult decisions will have to be made. Either he will make hardly any movement, in which case there will be broken crockery when he speaks in the House, much of it broken by his own side, or he will make a major add-back which, unless extra financial resources are provided, will mean that money will have to come from the Regular Army. I suspect that that money will have to come from the logistic chain.
If we are to have an expeditionary force capability and to take part in real power projection during the next 10 years; and if, in the words of Admiral Fisher, we are to see the Navy firing the Army once again ashore as a giant shell, the crucial element will be the logistic chain. A month ago, I was fortunate enough to observe regular and territorial soldiers in one of the largest logistics exercises that the United Kingdom has ever held. I commend all the men and women involved, particularly


the commander of the support group, Brigadier Tim Cross. Logistics is not a boring area, because the logistic element precedes all others. Logistics operatives pass the fighting troops forward, and when the fighting troops are withdrawn, they are the last to leave. That is a major problem for Ministers to solve. I am afraid that, on the evidence so far of the financial constraints, and on what we have seen from the strategic defence review, the figures do not add up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury mentioned something that we have referred to time and again over the past 18 months in the debate on the SDR. Our military policy is suffering from a vacuum, if not a contradiction, in our foreign and security policy. Once again, why will Ministers not publish the foreign policy baseline?

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Boring.

Mr. Simpson: They say that it is boring—but then why do they not publish it? It is the fundamental premise upon which the SDR is supposed to be based.
Several hon. Members mentioned the Government's disarray on European security policy over the past week. In the old Army expression, it is greatcoats on, greatcoats off; we do not know. That was reflected in some contributions from Labour Members.
There has also been disarray on foreign policy which may affect our arms exports. The disarray over our relations with Chile sends, to say the least, a strange signal to friends and allies, many of whom purchase arms from us for their self-defence and in respect of which there is a £5 billion balance in our favour that supports some 300,000 men and women in defence industry. The Government need to get their foreign and security policy well and truly thought out.
I support hon. Members on both sides of the House, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for Reigate, who mentioned the importance of the qualitative nature of our Army. To use crude military jargon, the British Army is a force multiplier. That force multiplier consists in the quality of all ranks.
I agree with the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) that the backbone of the British Army has been its non-commissioned officers, who have been outstanding in peace and war. They have usually managed to get a grip of officers in a way that no senior officer could. However, I am concerned that there was a touch of old Labour class warfare in this. There were some crude interpretations of British history—upper-class twits and so on. There are resonances here from the first world war; General Melchett comes to mind. [Interruption.] If the Minister of State's laughter is a reflection of his impression of British generals today, he is sadly misled. One of our major force multipliers is the quality of our senior officers.
It is perhaps unfair to pick out two or three but I highlight high-quality senior British officers such as General Sir Jeremy Mackenzie, who is about to finish as our Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe. He has made a major impact on the way in which NATO has operated in Bosnia. I have to pick out General

Sir Rupert Smith, General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland, who is about to become Deputy SACEUR, the outstanding professional soldier of his generation and a man who has shown great physical courage. There is also General Sir Sam Cowans, who is, I think, the first member of the Royal Signals to reach the Army Board. He will be the first chief of defence logistics and will have to deliver the efficiency savings. He will find it challenging, to say the least.
I could run down the list from the generals to the brigadiers, colonels, captains and others. They are high-quality men; I hope that there will be more women. They are our force multipliers. I refer to women because I never served in the British Army—I married into it. No one has to preach to me about the role of women in the armed forces, or about what they can or cannot do.
The British Army has fine traditions. It is a real force multiplier. It is now down to what I think is a pretty low-level critical mass. The strategic defence review has configured the Army for an expeditionary force capability.
Financial cuts and the current downturn in the economy must call into question our ability to achieve the SDR's objectives. The Army is operating in a foreign and security policy vacuum. At present, the jury is out on the SDR: the jury being the men and women serving in the Regular Army and their families. On the TA, the jury is in and is delivering a massive vote of no confidence in the Government, who have not got their policy right in this crucial area. The Minister has a few weeks to address these problems.
As in so many areas of policy—education, health and welfare—the Government raised massive expectations, spinning widely and deeply, and now comes the pay off. There are no more excuses. In the next year, our service men and women will make a judgment about whether to stay or go. They are volunteers: they are not conscripts. We all want them to stay and carry out a worthwhile and vital job. It is a vital job because no other area of Government policy is as important as defence.
One of the Secretary of State's predecessors, Lord Healey, said that we cannot have hospitals and schools without defence. I fear that for the armed forces—to paraphrase Labour's election song—things may only get worse.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): I pay tribute to hon. Members for their informed contributions to the debate. They were ample testimony to the value and importance that hon. Members attach to the Army and to those who serve in it, particularly for their professionalism, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson). However, the hon. Gentleman did not trust the judgment of the chiefs of staff on these matters, because he seemed to think that he had a better view than they did. He also seemed willing to spend far more money than I suspect the shadow Chancellor would consider prudent. We await some reconciliation of those views by the time we get to the debate on the Navy.
I shall have some difficulty covering all the points that were raised, so I shall write to colleagues. However, I must mention the Army equipment programme. The thorough scrutiny that was carried out during the SDR


strongly confirmed the overall direction of the Army equipment programme, in particular its emphasis on increased deployability, improved reconnaissance, surveillance, communication, information systems and longer range and precision for artillery. In turn, those capabilities are closely linked to the key SDR theme of exploiting new technology, especially information technology.
Following the SDR, the equipment programme will ensure that the Army continues to be well equipped to conduct the full range of operations identified in the review, from peacekeeping to high-intensity warfighting.
Two major initiatives within the SDR will help to improve the operational effectiveness and value for money of the Army equipment programme in the years to come. The smart procurement initiative will enable us to bring equipment into operational service with the armed forces more quickly, at lower cost, and with better performance. The creation of a fully integrated defence logistics organisation under a chief of defence logistics—rightly identified by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk as General Sam Cowan—will achieve better, more effective support for the services. Most importantly, these two initiatives—along with others in the SDR—will improve the military effectiveness of the armed forces when deployed on operations. In parallel with the SDR, we have taken a number of key decisions on major equipment projects, while other projects have achieved significant milestones over recent months.
The SDR confirmed the continuing requirement for a main battle tank as a fundamental capability to enable the Army to conduct both modern conventional warfare and peace support operations in spite of some of the press reports to the contrary during the process of the SDR. We are, therefore, procuring 386 Challenger 2 tanks, to equip six strong armoured regiments of 58 tanks each for operations. I am equally pleased to say that Challenger 2 successfully met its in-service date on 30 June, with deliveries of tanks to the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards completed ahead of schedule.
The hon. Members for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) both raised queries about the tank transporter. I am advised that the transporter currently in service, the Scammell Commander, is capable of taking Challenger 2.
The SDR also confirmed the importance of the Apache attack helicopter as a key battle-winning equipment. The project is on course to meet its in-service date of December 2000, and the first flight equipped with Rolls-Royce 322 engines took place in the United States in September. The attack helicopter has been selected as one of the pilot projects for smart procurement. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) would not expect me to give a definitive decision tonight on that, but we shall make that announcement as soon as possible.
We have made important decisions on two key reconnaissance and target acquisition capabilities. In March, jointly with France and Germany, we placed a contract for production of the COBRA counter-battery radar system, which will allow hostile artillery to be accurately detected, located and attacked at long ranges. COBRA will provide a vital capability both for war fighting and for peacekeeping operations such as Bosnia. In July, we announced our decision to undertake a programme of work to enhance the Army's tactical

reconnaissance capability. This will include studies into unmanned air vehicles, as well as participation with the United States in the TRACER—as it is properly known—programme to provide a highly mobile, stealthy manned battlefield reconnaissance capability.
In that context, I must say that I was surprised not so much at the fact that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) did not know the title of the programme, as at her dismissive comments of the programme as toys for boys. That was rather reminiscent of the comments from the Scottish nationalist hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) about equipment programmes as the result of a mid-life crisis. We expect such comments from the Scottish nationalists, but we are slightly surprised to get them from the Conservative party. No doubt, the Front-Bench colleagues of the hon. Lady for Beckenham will have a word with her about that sort of attitude.
We expect to make further major decisions on critical new reconnaissance and communications capabilities during the coming year. ASTOR—the airborne stand-off radar—will be a joint Army-RAF long-range theatre surveillance and target acquisition system, required to operate in all weather, by day and night. BOWMAN will provide a secure communication system, for both voice and data, for all elements of the three armed services engaged in the tactical land battle. BOWMAN will also provide an essential part of our joint battlespace digitisation initiative, to maximise the operational benefits of improved communication and information systems.
We are also taking action to improve the Army's indirect fire and air defence capabilities. Building on the success of the MLRS rocket system, which played an important part in the Gulf War, in July we entered a programme with the United States, France, Germany and Italy to develop a new guided rocket, with improved range, accuracy and effectiveness. In August, we announced our decision to join the United States in a programme for development of the Marconi marine land and naval systems ultra lightweight field howitzer. Our participation in this programme will provide information to inform future decisions on artillery weapons systems. In addition, we have recently approved, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of contractual negotiations, an order for additional launchers and missiles for the high velocity missile close air defence system.
In April we announced our intention, subject to satisfactory conclusion of contractual negotiations, to proceed with development and initial production of MRAV, the multi-role armoured vehicle, to replace some of the Army's aging in-service armoured utility vehicles. That is a joint venture with France and Germany, and we hope to sign a contract soon, together with Germany and France, for that product.
In September, we placed a contract for the area weapons effects simulator, which will complete the Army's tactical simulation strategy.
In summary, key decisions have been taken and significant progress made on a number of major national and collaborative projects involving either European or US allies, or both. Those equipments are part of a coherent programme that will reinforce capabilities whose importance was confirmed in the SDR and ensure that we have an Army that is equipped, trained and ready to carry out the tasks that the SDR identified.
I turn now to points raised during the debate. If there is time, I shall return to the subject of the Territorial Army. The restructuring of Land Command and its impact on York was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) and the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). We emphasise that the purpose of the Land Command restructuring is to make the Army more effective and efficient, so that it can meet the challenges of the 21st century. That is in the forefront of our minds as my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces makes his final deliberations on the future district structure of the Army. I can assure hon. Members that we hope to be able to make the relevant announcements shortly.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: In his consideration of those important issues, will the Minister take account of the political requirement to ensure that, at a time of constitutional change in the United Kingdom, the Army in Scotland remains commanded in Scotland?

Mr. Spellar: I am absolutely certain that my hon. Friend will take account of a broad range of factors during his deliberations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and the hon. Member for Colchester mentioned accommodation and its importance to recruitment and retention. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces made clear when he opened the debate the Government's commitment to the people who serve in the armed forces. Part of that commitment relates to their living accommodation.
The liaison team that we established during the strategic defence review to talk directly to service and civilian staff found the low standard of some of our single living accommodation for service personnel to be a significant cause of complaint. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has also criticised the Department on that issue in the past. As a result, we are taking action to address the single living accommodation problem, and plans are now in place to raise the standard of single living accommodation across all three services over the next few years. That ties in with the reforms I announced earlier this month about relations with the construction industry.
My hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) and for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South mentioned Gulf war and nuclear test veterans. On several occasions, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces has answered

questions and demonstrated the Government's continuing commitment to addressing the concerns of Gulf veterans openly, sympathetically and seriously. We have had several debates on the subject of nuclear test veterans. I urge hon. Members who raise the issue to look at the scientific evidence produced by the highly respected National Radiological Protection Board. 
The issue of ethnic minorities and their service in the armed forces was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) and for Loughborough, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South. My hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green will remember the introductory course we both attended at a south Birmingham college.
I have to say—particularly to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), who used the words "touchy-feely", and the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who referred to political correctness—that there are two key drivers behind our policy in respect of ethnic minorities and equal opportunities in the armed forces. First, we want to ensure that our armed forces have the pick of the best youngsters across the board, without regard to irrelevant considerations. Only then can we achieve proper operational effectiveness. Secondly, the policy is not about political correctness or some transatlantic fad, but about the good, old-fashioned British virtues of decency and fair play. That is what we have done and what we shall continue to do. We regret that Conservative Members seem to feel that there is some political advantage in trying to carp on the matter. However, such carping demeans them far more than it undermines the process that we are undertaking.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough mentioned fitness in the services. We are in discussions with the Minister for Sport on that important matter. We have also devised new fitness and training regimes, to ensure that people get up to the right fitness level and are able to participate fully in the services.
This has been a timely debate. The Army has embarked on a process of change, making it a modern force that is capable of meeting our future defence needs more effectively. We have outlined how we are to achieving that goal with both equipment and people. Our policy is good for both the Army and the country, and we are proud of our part in it."

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PETITION

Social Services (Worcestershire)

10 pm

Mr. David Lock: I wish to present a petition signed by 1,500 of my constituents who are concerned about the preservation of vital services provided to them by the social services department of Worcestershire county council, including the services provided to the many people in my constituency with learning difficulties.
The petition states:
To the House of Commons.
This is a petition from the Wyre Forest Committee Against Cuts.
We do not think the amount of local government money settled upon for the Worcestershire County Council is a fair amount. It directly affects the quality of services we use.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to re-examine provision for social services in Worcestershire.
And the petitioners remain etc.
The petition was organised by Mr. Chester O'Neil, of Kidderminster, whom I met earlier today in his wheelchair. I am sure that the House will wish to take very seriously his concerns and those of all users of those vital services.

To lie upon the Table.

Leasehold Valuation Tribunals

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Mr. Barry Gardiner: Leasehold valuation tribunals, or LVTs, were originally introduced to provide a quick, affordable and effective means of resolving disputes between landlords and leaseholders. Introduced first to hear valuation disputes in cases of leasehold enfranchisement, their remit was extended in 1986 to hear cases involving service charges and management. A knowledgable panel to hear the case, and no power to award costs but a fixed fee of up to £500, gave leaseholders the hope that justice would come swiftly and cheaply, without the need to go through the courts, with all the attendant costs and delays.
Sadly, that hope has since turned very sour. Joan South—one dedicated and determined campaigner—recently said:
The Leasehold Enfranchisement Association toiled for years in an attempt to make the LVTs a success. I personally attended virtually every single tribunal hearing for the first three years after the 1993 Act had become law and helped dozens of tenants prepare their cases.
She goes on:
We … no longer believe that what is happening is capable of delivering justice.
Those who know Joan South, as I know my hon. Friend the Minister does, know very well that she is not a woman who gives up lightly. Why, then, has she given up on the LVT system?
It is said that justice delayed is justice denied. In just such a way, justice is being denied to literally hundreds of leaseholders. In London alone, for the 12 months from 1 September 1997 to 31 August 1998, there were 331 applications for service charge LVTs. As at 23 September 1998, the total number of cases heard was only 29. The number of decisions handed down was 11. Yesterday, I was told by an applicant that he had been advised that his case would not be heard until 2000, as there was an 18-month backlog. The LVT is not quick, but is it affordable? Mr. Rimba does not think so.
In a service charge case in which the LVT found that the landlords had overcharged approximately £3,000, Mr. Rimba ended up paying £5,000 towards the landlords' costs. Even though the landlords had previously been found guilty in the courts for not supplying section 20 details to support the service charge accounts, and, indeed, were fined for that failure, and even though that failure had rendered it impossible for Mr. Rimba to ascertain the exact instances of overcharging in the service charge accounts, the LVT, chaired by Mrs. Goulden JP, determined that, because it had
found in favour of the Applicant in respect of certain matters of contention between the parties, the Applicant was entitled to expect the service charge account to be limited to reflect this".
The LVTs were introduced with no powers to award costs; they can set only a fixed fee of up to £500.
The decision that I have just cited caused disbelief and bewilderment among professionals and leaseholders alike.
Peter Haler, the chief executive of LEASE, a leasehold advisory service, said:
What we don't understand at all is why the Tribunal allowed the £5,000 at all. Normally a 20C order will delete recharges completely.
Allowing the costs to be added to the service charge not only sets a dangerous precedent, but means that many leaseholders who might have sought redress from an LVT will have been discouraged from doing so because it is too expensive. It is not worth while for a leaseholder to fight a landlord who rips him off to the tune of £1,000 if it is going to cost him £2,000 to get justice.
Earlier this month, at a tribunal at which a tenant represented himself and 177 of his fellow leaseholders, he found ranged against him an eminent Queen's counsel, an assistant barrister and a solicitor. Such representation at an LVT, which is supposed to be a quick, efficient and cheap way of getting justice, is an abuse of its raison d'etre. It is often the wealthy landowner who can afford to employ the legal battalions; the leaseholder more often cannot.
The LVT is not affordable, but is it effective? During a previous late-night encounter on this topic in the House last December, for which my hon. Friend the Minister and I can claim anorak status, my hon. Friend informed me:
a leasehold valuation tribunal is not an arbitral tribunal. That means that its decisions must be confirmed by a court before they can be enforced."—[Official Report, 19 December 1997; Vol. 303, c.636.]
Indeed, Lady Wilson, one of the chairs of the panels, has complained of the pre-trial reviews in the Maples Bury road case in August this year:
We do not have the teeth to enforce adherence to the prescribed timetable.
The pre-trial review should be one of the most important and helpful parts of the whole process. It is supposed to enable one of the panel to establish the outlines of the dispute and to bring about disclosure of the relevant documentation by a particular date before the hearing. In fact, it is now rare for both parties even to attend. Frequently, critical papers are not provided, yet the tribunal has no sanction that it can apply.
The frustration that can result can be illustrated well by reporting what happened in the Rubypoint case. A notice was sent to the managers at Rubypoint that an application to appoint a new manager had been lodged with an LVT. That notice was ignored. A further notice informing Rubypoint of the pre-trial review date was also ignored. Mr. Hyam, Rubypoint's director, failed to attend. The notice for the tribunal was similarly ignored. The hearing was delayed, waiting for Mr. Hyam, who eventually turned up half an hour late, with none of the relevant papers.
The LVT was held in contempt, and it could not do a thing about it. The decision was one of the most astounding that have yet been heard in all LVTs. It was one in which a Miss Stella Evans was heard in the South South-Eastern LVT. She had applied to the LVT for a change of manager because her current manager, Mr. Hyam of Rubypoint, had been gaoled for four years for forgery and fraud for matters relating to the management, or should I say mismanagement, of Miss Evans's block. Miss Evans went to the LVT to ask for residents to be appointed as managers of their own block instead of Mr. Hyam's company, Rubypoint.
There was amazement at the decision. The chairman, a lawyer, Mr. Robert Long, ruled that the residents could manage, but would have to enter into a contract with Rubypoint to do so. In arriving at that verdict, the chairman clearly demonstrated that he had no idea of the difference between a manager and a managing agent. He had demanded that the tenants had to contract with Rubypoint, which had defrauded them as its agent, if they were to be allowed to manage their own block. Of course, he could not compel Rubypoint to contract with the manager, because it would be only the agent. In such a case, the judgment was entirely unenforceable.
Commenting on the decision, the Leasehold Advisory Service said:
when a tribunal appoints a new manager, the landlord's management powers are removed and a contract with him therefore is inappropriate.
Other leading commentators were less diplomatic. The barrister, Mr. Michael Daiches, wrote in a letter to Peter Hayler, the chief executive of the Leasehold Advisory Service:
the LVT appears to have gone completely haywire.
The LVT system, as it stands, came in with the hopes of literally thousands of oppressed leaseholders bearing down upon it. It came in with the expectation that it would be quick, affordable and effective. It is none of those things. It is not quick, it is not affordable and it is not effective as it stands. I urge the Government to do all they can to ensure that this deficiency is remedied as swiftly as possible, so that justice can be brought back to the people for whom it was originally intended.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on securing the opportunity to raise important issues relating to the work of leasehold valuation tribunals. He has been assiduous in raising concerns about leasehold problems and campaigning for reform. I should reassure the House at the outset that the Government want to see thorough and effective reform, and we are determined to achieve that objective. I know that some have said that we are not moving as fast as some leaseholders would like, but the legacy of the past few attempts at leasehold reform provides, as my hon. Friend is only too well aware, a salutary reminder of the consequences of misguided and ill-considered legislation, particularly when that legislation is introduced in a hurry. It is more important to get the legislation right for the long term. We intend to publish a consultation paper on radical proposals for reforming the structure of leasehold in the near future.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised several concerns about the operation of leasehold valuation tribunals, although he did not help his case by presenting an entirely negative view of their work. His examples require careful consideration and possibly changes to the current structures, but there are many other examples in which leasehold valuation tribunals have played an important role in assisting leaseholders who otherwise would have been unable to secure justice.
Only a few months ago, my hon. Friend was pressing the Government to ensure changes to the law that would make possible the transfer of more cases from the courts


to leasehold valuation tribunals, to give people easier access to swifter and cheaper justice. Therefore, while there are grounds for concern, the picture is not as bleak as my hon. Friend has painted it this evening.
Leasehold valuation tribunals were set up to provide a mechanism for resolving disputes between leaseholders and landlords. Initially, their main function was to resolve disputes over the price to be paid for acquiring the freehold of leasehold houses. Following the enactment of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, their role was extended to cover disputes over the price payable for collective enfranchisement of flats and for new leases.
The Housing Act 1996 gave tribunals a wider role from 1 September 1997. Leaseholders or landlords can apply to a tribunal for a determination of the reasonableness of charges for services, repairs, maintenance, insurance or management. That can include costs that have already been incurred and amounts payable before costs are incurred. Leaseholders who are having severe problems with the management of their building can apply to a tribunal for the appointment of a new manager. The changes were made to ensure that some of the defects in earlier legislation, such as the procedures under the 1987 legislation for the appointment of a manager, which had not proved successful, were replaced with more accessible systems.
The tribunals are independent of the Government, and are impartial. They normally consist of three members, including at least one lawyer and one surveyor or valuer. Hearings are semi-formal, and evidence is not given on oath. They are intended to provide a simpler alternative to court proceedings. Applicants do not have to be represented by a solicitor or barrister, although either party can be so represented if they wish. Most importantly, the tribunals do not have the power to award costs, so leaseholders do not face the risk of a large bill if they lose.
I shall try to address the specific points raised by my hon. Friend in turn. He started by describing the time taken to process leasehold valuation tribunal applications. We are well aware of the concerns about the time taken for cases to be determined, but that is unavoidable to an extent, given the need to ensure that both parties have an adequate opportunity to prepare their case. There is also the simple fact that, following the 1996 Act, leasehold valuation tribunals have received a substantial number of additional cases, increasing their work load.
It is too soon to draw firm conclusions about the ability of the system to cope with the additional work load that has been created as a result of the 1986 Act. We expect the time taken by tribunals to deal with cases to reduce over time. We are not in any way complacent about that; unacceptably long delays are involved in the handling of cases. The London panel is looking to streamline the procedures in the light of experience, and so speed up the process.
We are also looking to recruit more expert and lay members to tribunals in anticipation of an increasing number of applications from leaseholders. To give my hon. Friend an idea of that, I can tell him that 37 new panel members have been appointed in the past 12 months—10 of them in London. The Government are concerned that members of the panel should be more representative of all sections of the community, so we

have placed particular emphasis on encouraging the recruitment of women and members of ethnic minorities. Of the 37 new recruits, 11 are women and four are from ethnic minorities.
A further possible 40 candidates for panel membership are under consideration by the panels. Advertisements have also been placed for both lawyer chairmen and valuers. Advertisements for valuers recently appeared, and we expect interviews to be held at the end of November or early in December. We also expect appointments of new lawyer chairmen to be completed by the end of November. All those measures should help to tackle the problems that my hon. Friend has described, although, as I have stressed, we are not complacent. We are monitoring the situation closely, and planning a wider review of the rent assessment panel structure, of which tribunals are part.
As my hon. Friend will appreciate, panels have two separate roles. One is in respect of rent assessment by rent officers. Panels act as review panels—appeal bodies—against rent officer decisions. Work load in that area has declined as the number of regulated tenants who are subject to a rent officer determination of fair rent has been reducing. There are complex issues to ensure that we have sufficient people to cope with the tribunals' different responsibilities. The matter will be kept under close review.
My hon. Friend referred to several cases. I cannot comment on individual cases, but I shall briefly refer to issues arising from two of the cases that he has highlighted. The first is of Rimba v. Tennyson and Stavrou. Leasehold valuation tribunals have a discretion to make an order on such terms as they consider just and equitable, restricting the right of a landlord to recover legal costs incurred through appearance at a leasehold valuation tribunal hearing, where the terms of the lease allow the landlord to do so. There is no automatic right to an order precluding any cost recovery by that means, but we shall be looking at the issue as part of our broader monitoring of the leasehold valuation tribunal regime.
My hon. Friend mentioned costs. I am not convinced that leasehold valuation tribunals are not affordable. The purpose of setting a fee was to make it possible for leaseholders to apply, but to discourage frivolous applications from, for example, people who are simply seeking to delay payments of reasonable sums. The maximum fee is £500. It is often possible for leaseholders in the same block to share the costs of a single application, thereby substantially reducing their own liability.
I accept that the level of fees may discourage some applications. We have been particularly concerned about anti-competitive insurance arrangements, where the level of fee required to take the matter to a leasehold valuation tribunal may be disproportionate to the leaseholder's potential saving. We intend to address that issue in our forthcoming consultation paper on leasehold issues.
My hon. Friend also referred to the difficulties that some lay applicants who are unrepresented may encounter when confronted with landlords represented by several lawyers, possibly including Queen's counsel. One of the objectives of the leasehold valuation tribunal regime is that proceedings should be reasonably informal, so that leaseholders can appear in person without the expense of professional representation.
We certainly expect the leasehold valuation tribunals to treat people fairly and impartially, and not to allow their judgment to be influenced in any way by the presence of legal representatives on the other side. As I have said, one reason why the transfer of cases from the courts to the leasehold valuation tribunals was favoured was to allow for more informal hearings, with less risk of leaseholders being intimidated by deep-pocketed landlords who can afford expensive legal representation. We certainly want leasehold valuation tribunals to ensure real fairness between the parties in that respect.
My hon. Friend referred to the case involving Stella Evans and Rubypoint. Again, I cannot comment on an individual case, especially as I understand that, in that case, an application for a variation of the tribunal's order has been made. However, we are aware of the broader concerns about the way in which some tribunals are handling applications for the appointment of a manager, and I can assure my hon. Friend, and the House, that we want tribunals to establish workable arrangements in what can be a confrontational situation. The issue is not straightforward, and we intend to address it in our forthcoming consultation paper.
I hope that what I have said has assured my hon. Friend and the other hon. Members here that the Government take seriously the question of equity in the relations between landlords and leaseholders. We have an ambitious programme of reform, which we shall outline in the consultation paper; in the meantime, we shall examine closely the way in which leasehold valuation tribunals discharge their responsibilities.
I entirely accept that there are some difficulties associated with the novelty of the experience for leasehold valuation tribunals taking on work in areas in which they have no previous experience, and with the volume of cases being brought to their attention.
Difficulties may occur as a result, but we are determined that the leasehold valuation tribunal system will develop so as to be able to respond sympathetically and successfully to the new challenges that it faces, and to ensure that leaseholders and landlords get swift and effective justice at a reasonable price. We shall do all we can to ensure that the tribunal system meets its intended objectives.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.